HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1918 of 2003 DATE:08.06.2010 Between: S. Chalapathi Naidu … Petitioner and The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1918 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein-A.1 along with others was tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Rayachoty, in S.C.No.356 of 1998, for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 324, 326 r/w 149 IPC, Sections 25(1b) (a) and 27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 16 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.32 and M.Os.1 to 12 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of defence, but Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked. On a careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found all the accused guilty of some of the charges for which they were tried and accordingly convicted and sentenced them, by judgment dated 30.04.2001. Since this revision is filed by the petitioner-A.1, this Court refers to the sentence alone imposed on him. For the offence u/s 307 IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence u/s 25(1b)(a) of the Arms Act. As against the said judgment, the petitioner-A.1 filed Crl.A.No.97 of 2001 on the file of the III Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Cuddapah, and the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part, by judgment dated 19.12.2003, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner-A.1 for the offence u/s 307 IPC while confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence u/s 25(1b) (a) of the Arms Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-A.1 preferred this revision. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter as they were arrayed in S.C.No.356 of 1998. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused and the prosecution witnesses are residents of Siddavandlapalli village. There are two faction groups in the village - one group led by A.2 and the other group led by on Sidda Rama chandra Reddy @ Rama Chandra Naidu. On account of the murder of the younger brother of A.2, there was a police bundobust in the village. On 26.06.1994 at 10.00 a.m. while P.Ws.1 to 3 were proceeding to Pathapalem bus stop, all the accused formed themselves as members of unlawful assembly with a common object of killing them and attacked them with guns, spears, sticks, stones and bombs. A.1 to A.3 fired shots and caused injuries to P.W.2. When P.W.1 questioned them, A.4 fired his gun and caused injury on the right chest of P.W.1. The other accused hurled stones and bombs at them. In the meanwhile, the police officials i.e., P.W.6 and P.W.7 came there and fired into air and thereby the accused fled away from the scene of offence. Thereafter, P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 and 3 proceeded to Chakrayapet Police Station and gave a complaint and the same was registered as Crime No.30/1994 and after obtaining sanction from the District Magistrate, the police filed charge sheet against the accused. 4. Heard both sides. 5. In my considered view, the courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner-A.1 has a weapon without any valid licence as provided for under the provisions of the Arms Act. Hence, I see no merits in this revision and thus the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. In fact, as per Section 25(1b)(a) of the Arms Act, if any person is convicted of the said offence, the minimum sentence of imprisonment is one year and it may extend to three years. In this case, the petitioner-A.1 is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In the normal circumstances, this Court would not interfere with the said finding. However, as per the proviso of the said provision of law, the court may for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year. In view of the same, this Court feels that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner-A.1 can be reduced to that of the period already undergone by him for the following reasons: a) The alleged offence took place on 26.06.1994 i.e. about 16 years back. b) According to the counsel for the petitioner-A.1, the petitioner was in jail for a period of about 20 days. c) The judgment in Crl.A.No.97/2001 was pronounced on 19.12.2003 and this Court granted bail on 26.12.2003. The petitioner was arrested on 11.07.1994 and released on bail on 20.07.1994. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner-A.1 has undergone the sentence of about 20 days. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was jail for a period of 20 days can be accepted 7. In the light of the above, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years imposed on the petitioner-A.1 by the trial court as confirmed by the lower appellate court, for the offence u/s 25(1b)(a) of the Arms Act, is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him. 8. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 8th June, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1918 of 2003 (Dismissed) 8th June, 2010 CBS