JUDGMENT Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral).:- The present revision petition has been filed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.11.2009, vide which the present revision-petitioner was convicted by learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda, in Crl.A.No.31 of 3.6.2009 for offence under Section 25(1)(B) of Arms Act (for short the ‘Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, by reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 18.12.2004, Dhian Singh, Sub Inspector, accompanied by Krishan Kumar, Head Constable; Inderjit Singh, Constable; Bahadur Singh, Constable, was present at Sangat crossing in connection with patrolling when Krishan Kumar, Head Constable, received secret information that accused Karnail Singh son of Gurdial Singh, resident of Village Gehari Bhagi is in the habit of keeping unauthorised arms and if a raid is conducted at his house, arms without licence can be recovered. Hence, ruqa Ex.PA was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PA/1 was registered. The raid was conducted at the house of the accused. On 20.12.2004, accused produced .12 bore single barrel gun alongwith two live cartridges of the same bore and a duplicate licence bearing No.833/P which was renewed upto 5.6.1994. The gun, cartridges and the licence were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PB. As the licence was renewed upto 5.6.1994 only, after completion of necessary formalities challan against him was filed for his trial for offence under Section 25 of the Act. 3. Learned trial Court framed charge for offence under Section 25 of the Act against the present revision-petitioner, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 4 PWs. 5. PW1 is Dhian Singh, Sub Inspector, PW2 is Krishan Kumar, Head Constable, PW3 is Hardial Singh, Junior Assistant of the office of District Magistrate, Bathinda and PW4 is Ajit Singh, Junior Assistant of the office of SDM, Bathinda. 6. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he denied the incriminating evidence coming against him and pleaded innocence. 7. 6. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he denied the incriminating evidence coming against him and pleaded innocence. 7. After hearing learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused, learned trial Court acquitted the present revision petitioner mainly on the ground that on the date of seizure, the arm was not in serviceable condition. 8. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, State filed appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda, who, vide impugned judgment and order reversed the said finding and convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforementioned. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the revision-petitioner, learned State counsel and gone through the whole record carefully. 10. At the time of issuing notice of motion, a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order on 18.11.2009: “ Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not press the present petition on merits, but states that a lenient view be taken in the matter and the sentence of the petitioner be reduced. Notice of motion on the limited question of quantum of sentence for 18.12.2009.” 11. Hence, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not want to press the present revision petition on merits and his only request is that a lenient view be taken in the matter as the petitioner is an illiterate villager and that he has already undergone more than 4 months of the sentence. 12. The charge against the accused is that he was found in possession of .12 bore single barrel gun. There is no dispute that the licence was valid only upto 5.6.1994 and it was not renewed thereafter till the gun was recovered on 20.12.2004. Hence, licence was not renewed from 5.6.1994 till 20.12.2004, i.e., for more than ten years. Hence, the present revision-petitioner has been rightly convicted by learned appellate Court for offence under Section 25(1)(B) of the Act. 13. However, insofar as quantum of sentence is concerned, it has been contended that accused is an illiterate person. He had thumb marked his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as statement recorded at the time of framing of charge. 13. However, insofar as quantum of sentence is concerned, it has been contended that accused is an illiterate person. He had thumb marked his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as statement recorded at the time of framing of charge. The offence is a technical one as the petitioner had obtained the licence of the gun and, however, he did not get the same renewed and hence, taking into consideration this fact, learned Appellate Court had taken a lenient view and sentenced the present revision-petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months only. 14. However, there is force in the argument of learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that revision-petitioner deserves further reduction in the quantum of sentence as he has already undergone more than four months of sentence and that it cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the revision-petitioner for not getting the licence renewed and that rather the licence was not renewed inadvertently as he is an illiterate villager. 15. Hence, in view of these facts, while maintaining the judgment of conviction passed by learned appellate Court, the sentence awarded to revision petitioner is reduced from six months to the period already undergone by him during investigation and trial of this case. It has been stated by learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that fine has already been deposited. Hence, revision-petitioner be released, if not required in any other case. --------------