Judgment L.P.Singh, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under sec. 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that this case was started on the written report of A.S.I. Sakaldeo Yadav who reported to the Kotwali police station that while he was on patrolling duty and was checking motor cycle at about 12.30 on 2.6.91 he found one person going towards station in a suspicious circumstance. The man was called on which he started to flee towards station. He was chased and was caught. While he was being caught he fired pistol on the A.S.I, which did not hit him. On search a country made pistol and live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the accused. A search list was made and the accused was forwarded to the police station. A sanction was obtained and thereafter charge sheet was submitted in this case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the case and the case was committed to the court of session. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined five witnesses. P.W. 1 is Ashok Kumar Singh. P.W. 2 is Biresh Prasad Yadav. P.W. 3 is Faruque Ansari, P.W. 4 is Sukhdeo Yadav, the informant. P.W. 5 is Ramji Prasad. 5. P.W. 1 Ashok Kumar Singh is the expert who had examined the fire arm recovered from the possession of the accused and has submitted his report which has been marked as Ext.1. He is Major who had examined the pistol and he has given his report. He has written in his report that the fire arm can be used after rectifying the defects. About the cartridges he has said that these were country made cartridges of 315 bore P.W. 2 Biresh Yadav was one of the constables who was present at the time of raid and search. He has stated that he had caught the accused while he was trying to escape in a suspicious circumstances on 2.6.1991. He has further stated that the accused had fired on the A.S.I, but has supported the recovery. 6. P.W. 4, Sakaldeo Yadav is the A.S.I, who was leading the raiding party and he had caught the accused while he was escaping. He has further stated that the accused had fired on the A.S.I, but has supported the recovery. 6. P.W. 4, Sakaldeo Yadav is the A.S.I, who was leading the raiding party and he had caught the accused while he was escaping. He has proved the seizure list Ext.2 and his report Ext.3. He has further proved formal F.I.R. Ext.4. He has further stated that the accused fired on him but it did not hit him. He has also supported the recovery and the seizure list. 7. P.W. 3 is tender witness and P.W. 5 is a formal witness. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case no independent witness has been examined and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. It has been further submitted that the occurrence took place on 2.6.1991 i.e. 16 years back and the appellant has been mentally and physically harassed and punished during the prolonged litigation. He has also remained in custody for about 18 months. 9. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the occurrence took place 16 years back and the appellant has remained in custody for about 18 months, in my view it will be expedient in the interest of justice if the sentence of appellant is reduced to the period he has already undergone in jail. 10. Mr. Saroj Kumar Tiwary, Advocate has assisted the court as amicus curiae. Let his remuneration be paid by the Patna High Court Council of Legal Aid and Advice. 11. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence this appeal is dismissed.