JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J. - This is an appeal by Ram Das, against his conviction under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act and the sentence of one year's R.I. passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in S.T. No. 99 of 1977 on 28.4.1979. 2. This appeal was listed on several dates and ultimately on 9.9.91 when the matter came up for hearing the appellant's counsel was absent and, of course, the appellant himself was not present. Consequently, the bail of the appellant was cancelled. He was directed to be arrested and he has been brought today before this court by the Police under arrest. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant is absent today also, hence Sri R.C. Pathak, Advocate, of sufficient standing in this court was appointed as an amicus curiae to assist the court for disposal of the appeal because it could have served no purpose in, keeping the appeal pending and detaining the appellant who has come under Cuffs. Sri Surendra Singh, learned A.G.A. has been heard in opposition and the entire record has been examined. 4. On 11.11.76 Shiv Baran Singh, S.O. Mahoba, P.W. 1 received information that a rifle looted in an incident in village Mirtala by the appellant Ram Das was retained by him and co-accused Ramjit near Rahelia Tank. P.W. 1 along with several witnesses went to the Tank which was near the temple and the accused who were collected there started firing at the Police party which also fired in retaliation. Ram Das appellant was arrested and a Rifle No. 51 of 256 bore was recovered from his possession. Ranjit, co-accused was seen fleeing. The appellant and the recovered article and the fired cartridge which was also recovered from the spot was brought to the police station and a case under Section 307, I.P.C. and 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act was registered against him. Rampal Singh, Bhadoria investigated the case and submitted a charge sheet who has been examined as P.W. 4. After submission of the charge-sheet the matter was committed to the court of Sessions by the Magistrate and at the trial the appellant and co-accused Ranjit were tried. Ranjit has been acquitted of the charges. The appellant was also acquitted of the charges under Sections 307 and 412, I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. After submission of the charge-sheet the matter was committed to the court of Sessions by the Magistrate and at the trial the appellant and co-accused Ranjit were tried. Ranjit has been acquitted of the charges. The appellant was also acquitted of the charges under Sections 307 and 412, I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. He has, as stated above, been convicted only under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act. 5. Apart from the police witnesses there are two independent witnesses, -lamely, Bhagwan Das and Siya Ram who fully corroborated the recovery of the rifle from Ram Das. There is no error in the finding recorded by the Trial Judge about placing reliance upon the prosecution witnesses nor can it be said that there is any error in convicting the appellant under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act also. Sri Surendra Singh has refused the said argument. 6. As stated above, there is no enmity whatsoever between Bhagwan Das and Siya Ram on the one hand and Ram Das on the other. The police witnesses were corroborated by their testimony. The rifle (Ext. 2) was recovered from his possession (Ram Das). Since he has no licence his conviction under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act is valid and justified. 7. Coming to the question of sentence. Sri Pathak said that the appellant has been in jail for about two months. It appears that the appellant has been in Jail for quite sometime as an under Trial and then also suffered Jail sentence as a convict after he had been convicted by the Trial Judge and was bailed out on the appeal having been filed in this Court. Sri Surendra Singh has not refuted this argument. The age of the appellant was 56 years on 17.4.79 when his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Today he should be close to 70 years. He has been brought before the Court and looks weak, old and fragile. Sending him back to jail would not serve any useful purpose and the sentence can and should be reduced to the period already undergone on special facts and circumstances of this case. It may be noted that about this case. It maybe noted that about a week's custody has already been undergone by him after this Court's order was passed asking him to be taken into custody. 8. It may be noted that about this case. It maybe noted that about a week's custody has already been undergone by him after this Court's order was passed asking him to be taken into custody. 8. From the aforesaid discussion this appeal has to be dismissed insofar as the conviction of the appellant under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act is concerned which is hereby upheld but his sentence awarded by the Trial Court is modified to the period already undergone. He shall be released forthwith and his bail bonds are discharged. 9. With this -modification in sentence the appeal stands dismissed. Rs. 250/- shall be paid to Sri H.C. Pathak learned counsel for the appellant who has appeared as amicus curiae.