S.K. Katriar, J.
1. The sole petitioner has preferred this criminal revision application against the impugned judgment dated 5-1-93, passed by Shri Jiwan Tigga, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda, Biharsharif, in Cr. Appeal No. 22/26 of 1987/88, Rama Mistri v. State of Bihar, whereby the judgment of the trial Court has been affirmed in lull. The learned SDJM, Hilsa, by his judgment dated 9-4-87, passed in GR Case No. 1128/ 79 (Trial No. 314 of 1987) State through Yogeshwar Singh, SI, Hilsa Police Station v. Rama Mistry, has convicted the petitioner herein under Sections 25-A and 26 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 25-A, but did not inflict any separate sentence under Section 26 of the Act.
2. During course of raid by the Sub-Inspector of the Hilsa Police Station, from the residential premises of the petitioner on 28-12-79, at about 5.45 p.m., a number of incriminating materials meant to manufacture, fire-arms were recovered. The petitioner was arrested on the spot and was ultimately released by learned Sessions Judge on 25-2-80. The cognizance was taken on 12-7-80 under Sections 25-A, and 26 of the Act. The trial Court convicted the petitioner under-Sections 25-A and 26 of the Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was taken into custody on 9-4-87 itself. His appeal was admitted on 6-5-87, and he was directed to be released on bail, and was actually released from jail on 10-5-87. He then preferred appeal which was dismissed on 5-1-93, and conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court was affirmed in full. Pursuant to the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner, he was arrested on 14-2-94. In the present revision application, by order dated 25-3-94, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail. He thus remained in jail for a total period of four and-a-half months. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner was engaged in manufacture of fire-arms without requisite licence to manufacture those under Section 5 of the Act.
3. While assailing the validity of the impugned judgment, Counsel for the petitioner did not assail the validity of the conviction recorded by the Court of appeal below. He, however, submitted that the judgment of both the Courts below are vitiated on the question of sentence for non-consideration of Sections 360 and 361 of the Cr. P.C., 1973. He has relied on the following three reported judgments:
(i) : 1979CriLJ636 , Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab,
(ii) : 1979CriLJ841 , Bishnudeo Shaw v. State of West Bengal, and
(iii) : [1981]1SCR1279 , Ved Prakash v. State of Haryana.
4. On the strength of these reported judgments, learned Counsel submitted that a long period of litigation and the little period of imprisonment suffered, will surely serve as a deterrent and he should, therefore, be released on probation of good conduct or on after admonition in terms of Section 360 of the Code. Learned APP opposed the contention of the petitioner and, inter alia, submitted that both the Courts below have applied their judicial minds on the question of sentence and there is no scope for interference in criminal revisional jurisdiction.
5. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that this revision application has to be dismissed for various reasons, the most , important being that the contention relating to the applicability of Sections 360 and 361 of the Code requires the requisite collection of facts which has not been done by the petitioner. The contention was neither raised before the trial Court, nor before the Court of appeal below. This Court is, therefore, helpless in applying the provisions of law relied on by the petitioner. This Court takes judicial notice of the large-scale violence being perpetrated throughout the Sate of Bihar a good deal of which is on the strength, or with the help, of unlicensed fire-arms.
6. In such circumstances, this revision application is dismissed. The bail-bond of the petitioner is hereby cancelled, and he is directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve out the remaining portion of his sentence.