JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 25.02.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.01.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad (Bhuli) P.S. Case No.363 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. No.1497 of 2007 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sections 25(1-b) A and 26 of the Arms Act and sentencing him accordingly has been affirmed. 3. The allegation made in the FIR is that on 17.05.2007 while the informant was on patrolling duty and when he reached B block temple, a confidential information was received that some miscreants had assembled near the Chhath Ghat. On such information when the informant and others searched an abandoned hut near the river, the petitioner was found consuming heroin and a loaded country-made pistol was found near him. The petitioner failed to submit any explanation with respect to the possession of a loaded countrymade pistol. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Dhanbad (Bhuli) P. S. Case No. 363 of 2007 was instituted in which after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, charge was framed for the offences under Sections 25 (1-b) A and 26 of the Arms Act. 4. In course of trial, 7 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 – Rinendu Suman @ Suman Singh is the seizure list witness who has supported the seizure of a loaded countrymade pistol. P.W. 2 – Shyama Nand Mandal is the informant who has stated that when the patrolling party reached near B block at about 11 PM, they were informed that some anti-social elements had gathered in a hutment besides B block river. He has stated that on search, the petitioner was found consuming heroin and a loaded countrymade pistol was kept beside him. The petitioner failed to show any document with respect to the fire arms and a seizure list was also duly prepared. He has further proved his self-statement marked as Exhibit 2 and the seizure list marked as Exhibit 1/1. The pistol and cartridge were produced before the Court which were marked as material Exhibit 1 and 1/1. The petitioner failed to show any document with respect to the fire arms and a seizure list was also duly prepared. He has further proved his self-statement marked as Exhibit 2 and the seizure list marked as Exhibit 1/1. The pistol and cartridge were produced before the Court which were marked as material Exhibit 1 and 1/1. P.W. 3 – Suraj Kumar has supported the seizure of a country-made pistol and a cartridge. This witness has identified his signature on the seizure list and had also identified the petitioner as the person from whom the fire arm was recovered. P.W. 4 – Nandan Deo has stated that he had taken the police party to the hutment where the seizure was made. This witness has identified the petitioner as a person in whose possession a loaded countrymade pistol was found. This witness is an independent witness. P.W. 5 – Sujit Kumar is the member of the raiding party who has supported the prosecution case as disclosed by P.W. 1. P.W. 6 – Chero Uraon is the Investigating Officer who was also a member of the raiding party. This witness has proved the sanction order marked as Exhibit 6 and had described the place of occurrence and had also taken the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. This witness has submitted charge-sheet. P.W. 7 – Sarjulal Thakur is the Sergeant Major who has examined the fire arm and had found it in a working condition. This witness has proved his report which has been marked as Exhibit 5. 5. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the petitioner. It has been stated that the fire arm was not found in the actual physical possession of the petitioner and the same may have been planted to falsely implicate the petitioner. An alternative argument has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction, the period of sentence may suitably be modified considering the fact that the petitioner had remained in custody for about 13 months. 6. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 7. 6. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 7. The recovery of the alleged fire arm by P.W. 1 has been supported by P.W. 5 and P.W. 6, as all the 3 witnesses were members of the raiding party who on secret information had conducted a raid in the hutment near B block river and had found the petitioner consuming heroin and a countrymade pistol was kept besides him. The petitioner had failed to submit any explanation with respect to the fire arm found besides him. The Sergeant Major had examined the fire arm and cartridge and had found them in a working condition. P.W. 4 is an independent witness who had taken the police to the hutment and he had identified the petitioner as the person who was having in his possession a country-made pistol. The evidence of P.W. 4 therefore being an independent witness also corroborates the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 and in such circumstances the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt so far as the offence of Section 25 (1-b) A & 26 of the Arms Act is concerned. 8. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 2007 and has completed a major part of the sentence awarded to him. The petitioner in total has remained in custody for about 13 months out of the maximum period of 18 months. On consideration of the aforesaid fact, therefore, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 9. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence awarded to the petitioner.