THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1179 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) is directed against the Judgment, dated 26.08.2003, in Crl.A.No.69 of 2002, on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Cuddapah, whereunder and whereby, the conviction of the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short, “the Act”), and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, as recorded in the judgment, dated 19.02.2002, in C.C.No.102 of 2001 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cuddapah, were confirmed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision case may be stated as follows: On 16.05.2000 at about 05:30 PM, on information, PWs.2 and 7 along with mediators, PWs.1 and 3, and some others proceeded to K. Sunkesula Harijanawada. At that time the accused was going on by carrying a plastic bucket. On seeing the police, the accused tried to ran away, but he was apprehended. When PW.2 interrogated the accused, he revealed his name and identity particulars and on verification of the plastic bucket, police found three country made bombs kept in a paddy husk. PW.2 seized the same under cover of Ex.P-2, arrested the accused and handed over to Sub-Inspector of police, Khajipet, who registered a case and investigated into. The accused and the property seized were produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa. The material objects were sent to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Ananthapur, and the opinion of the expert would go to show that the articles analyzed by the Analyst are the remnants of explosive substances. After obtaining necessary sanction from the District Collector, Cuddapah, Sub - Inspector of Police – PW.5, filed the charge sheet. 3. When a charge under Section 5 of the Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and Exs.P-1 to P-9 were got marked besides case properties M.Os.1 and 2. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the accused was in possession of the explosive substances and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated above. On appeal, the said conviction and sentence were confirmed by the appellate Court. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed by the accused. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the judgments of both the Courts below are correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that except the interested testimony of PWs.1 and 7, there is no independent evidence to show that the accused was in possession of the explosive substance; that PWs.1 and 3 did not identify the accused carrying explosive substances; that the person who had shown the accused is not examined; that when proper procedure is not followed with regard to the arrest of the accused, the arrest becomes illegal and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the judgments under challenge inasmuch as the findings of both the Courts below are not shown to be perverse or contrary to law; that there are no illegal or incorrect findings given by any of the Courts below and hence, she prays to dismiss the revision case. 10. There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings are shown to be perverse, or contrary to law, ordinarily this Court will not interfere with the judgments under challenge. Similar re- appreciation of evidence is not desirable, unless a finding is shown to be illegal or incorrect or improper. To know whether the findings are proper or not, it is necessary to refer to the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 11. PWs.2 and 7 are the police officials. Their evidence is clear that the accused was found in possession of MO.2 along with MO.1., when they apprehended the accused on 16.05.2000 near K. Sunkesula Harijanawada. On seeing the police, the accused tried to run away. Therefore, they caught, surrounded and detained the accused and found the accused carrying a plastic bucket – MO.1. On verification of MO.1 – plastic bucket, they found three country made bombs. Thereafter, they prepared a panchnama - Ex.P-3 on the same day, in the presence of PWs.1 and 3. 12. No doubt PW.1 did not support the case of the prosecution, but PW.3, who is an independent mediator supported the entire case of the prosecution with regard to catching hold of the person near K. Sunkesula Harijanawada and that person carrying a plastic bucket which contained explosive substances. No doubt PW.3 did not identify the accused as the person who was caught hold of on 16.05.2000. But, at the same time, that is not a material circumstance so as to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. 13. The fact that the accused was arrested and he was produced before the concerned Court along with the explosive substances itself shows that the person who was apprehended on 16.05.2000 is no other than the accused. No other person was apprehended. Even it is not the case of the accused that some other person was apprehended on 16.05.2000 and produced before the concerned Court. Simply because PWs.2 and 7 are the police officials, that cannot be a ground to reject their evidence. Their evidence has to be appreciated like that of any other witness. If they have any grouse or enmity against the accused so as to implicate him falsely in a case of this nature, then their evidence can be rejected but not on the ground that they are police officials. However, their evidence is completely in corroboration with the evidence of PW.3 coupled with recitals in Ex.P-3. With regard to the apprehension of the accused on 16.05.2000, the very same person, who was apprehended on 16.05.2000, was produced before the concerned competent Court with the explosive substances. As seen from the report of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, MO.1 contained the remnants of explosive substances and Ex.P-5 is the certificate issued by the competent authority. Similarly, the District Collector, Cuddapah, has given a sanction order to prosecute the accused as required under the Act, as per Ex.P-4. Therefore, both the Courts below after proper appreciation of evidence on record, rightly found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act. None of the findings is shown to be improper or incorrect. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court. 14. With regard to sentence, considering the fact that the accused is aged about 25 years by the date of incident; that he has got one daughter aged about one year, who is completely depending on him at the time of conviction and sentence by the trial Court; that it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is habitual offender and involved in so many cases of this nature, a lenient view can be taken with regard to the sentence. Therefore, sentence is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for one year to rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months, while maintaining the fine amount with default sentence. Period of detention, if any, undergone by the petitioner during the course of investigation, trial and after conviction shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 15. With the above modification, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J June 17, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1179 OF 2004 Between: Naguru Venkatesu @ Chinnakappa .....PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1179 OF 2004 June 17, 2010