HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1516 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2, Munawar Khan @ Munna and Gedam Eashwar Das @ Isthari respectively, against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.59 of 2002 dated 17-05-2004 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Adilabad, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad, in C.C. No.295 of 2001 dated 17-09-2002 for the offence under Section 394 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution case, in brief, is as under: On 24-02-2001 at about 10-50 PM, while the de facto complainant - PW.1 was going on his bicycle with a cash of Rs.13,000/-, near Railway Cabin, Mahalaxmiwada, Adilabad, accused chased him on a bicycle, attacked him and snatched the cash bag containing Rs.13,000/- from him. PW.1 also attacked the accused with stones to save himself. On a complaint given by PW.1, police of Two Town Police Station, Adilabad Town, registered a case in Crime No.50 of 2001 for the offence under Section 394 IPC, investigated into and filed charge sheet against the accused for that offence. 3. For the charge framed against the accused for the offence under Section 394 IPC, they pleaded not guilty. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-9 apart from Mos.1 to 7. On behalf of the accused, no evidence was adduced. 5. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both the accused denied the incriminating material against them in the evidence of the prosecution. 6. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court found both the accused guilty of the offence under Section 394 IPC and accordingly sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months each. Challenging the same, both the accused preferred appeal and the lower appellate Court dismissed the same confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved of the same, this revision is filed by the accused. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. 8. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the accused were not released on bail during the pendency of this revision and that they served out the sentence imposed on them, as they were not released on bail. 9. In the circumstances, practically this revision became infructuous. However, a finding is required to be given as to whether the conviction against the accused is proved or not. 10. It is a case where the accused chased PW.1 with cycle chains, attacked him and snatched his bag containing a sum of Rs.13,000/- and they were arrested immediately and cash was recovered from them. Further, their presence is revealed from the injuries sustained by them during the incident as PW.1 has also attacked them with stones to save himself. Thus, evidence of the prosecution amply supports participation of the accused in the incident and committing the offence. In these circumstances, both the Courts below found both the accused guilty of the offence alleged against them. 11. Now, nothing is brought to my notice to state that appreciation of evidence by both the Courts below is perverse or there is any legal infirmity. 12. In the circumstances, I see no merits in this revision to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below, as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the Courts below. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 24, 2010. PV