Judgment By Court.- This government appeal has been preferred by the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) against the order and judgment dated 31.3.1997 passed in G.R. Case No. 1754 of 1993, T.R. No. 114 of 1997, Mango P.S. Case No. 242 of 1993 by Shri G.K. Dubey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum. 2. Admitted facts on record are that the respondent Jahagir Khan was found and held guilty by the learned trial court under sections 25(1/B)/A and 26(1) of the Arms Act for possession of a bullet without having any authority to possess the same. The learned trial court however sentenced him to serve S.I. for one month on each count separately, which was directed to be adjusted against the period he has already remained in custody. 3. This appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the learned trial court has committed a mistake of law by imposing the sentence of S.I. for 1 month and that period was directed to be set off. The learned counsel for the State stressed before me that the minimum prescribed sentence of 1 year and 6 months have been ignored by the trial court which cannot be sustained. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent Jahagir Khan submitted that the trial court has considered the circumstances in which the respondent was sentenced to serve S.I. for 1 month on each count. According to the learned counsel the trial court is empowered to consider reducing the sentences in befitting cases like present in the facts and circumstances discussed in the impugned judgment. 5. I have considered the submissions of both sides alongwith the materials on record. The learned trial court having held the respondent guilty under sections 25(1/B)/A and 26(1) of the Arms Act found that the respondent having already remained in custody before his bail for more than a month needs to be sentenced to S. I. for a month only. This view is apparently against the mandates of law and cannot be sustained. The co-accused arrested alongwith the respondent Chhotey Soai was sentenced on conviction by the same court for a period of 1 year and 6 months on both counts vide order dated 23.2.1995. This view is apparently against the mandates of law and cannot be sustained. The co-accused arrested alongwith the respondent Chhotey Soai was sentenced on conviction by the same court for a period of 1 year and 6 months on both counts vide order dated 23.2.1995. Furthermore the amended provisions of this Act in 1985 the trial court is given power to impose sentence of a period less than 1 year in special circumstances but the learned trial court has not mentioned any such circumstances except that the respondent has got a family and his father was a government servant. 6. In my considered view, reasons provided in the impugned judgment to pass an order of inappropriate sentence just to accommodate the respondent Jahagir Khan is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed and sentences passed set aside. 7. Keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place in December'1993 the respondent is sentenced to serve R.I. for 6 months on both counts. The period of his detention during trial will be calculated for set off purposes. The respondent is directed to surrender before the court below within six weeks to serve the remaining period of sentence failing which the trial court shall take all coercive steps for his arrest.