HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.876 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is arising out of judgment dated 10.5.2004 in Criminal Appeal No.447 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal while confirming judgment dated 24.10.2002 of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur in S.C. No.26 of 2002. The facts which led to the filing of the present revision are as follows; On 7.12.2001 at about 9.00 a.m., The Sub-Inspector of Police, Old Guntur, Law & Order Police Station, Guntur along with his staff found the petitioner-accused while behaving high handedly near Mani Hotal Centre, Nandivelugu road, old Guntur in a public place, armed with a big knife of 16 inches length and with a handle and threatening public and passers by for money and created a terrific scene. Then, the Sub-Inspector arrested the petitioner-accused and he was tried for offence punishable under Section 27 of Arms Act on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur.. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and got marked Exs. P1 to P3 and M.O.1, the case property. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was let in. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Whereas aggrieved by that, the revision petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur, who dismissed the appeal while confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 27 of Arms Act. So aggrieved by that the petitioner filed the present revision. It is the contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioner that according to the prosecution, the incident took place at about 10.00 a.m. but the F.I.R. was issued at 9.15 a.m. which is fatal. It is further the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that even according to the prosecution, though the revision petitioner/accused had threatened the public and passers by to pay money at the point of knife and created a terrible and ghastly scene and thereby, he committed the alleged offence, however, the prosecution failed to ascertain the names of such public which is also fatal. Therefore, the said circumstances amply disprove the charge levelled against the revision petitioner-accused. I have gone through the record. The prosecution placed good and acceptable evidence in order to establish the charge levelled against the revision petitioner-accused. P.W.1 and P.W.2 police constables spoke about the incident. Their evidence agrees with Ex.P1, police proceedings, dated 7.12.2001 and there is no basis to show that a false case was foisted against the accused for one reason or the other. Further, when the charge is established, the discrepancies pointed out need not be taken seriously. Hence, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not tenable. Ultimately, I hold that the charge levelled against the revision petitioner- accused is established. Learned counsel for the petitioner ultimately has pleaded to reduce the sentence imposed. Taking into consideration the ordeal that the revision petitioner must have suffered since the date of registration of the case in 2002, by way of attending the Courts wasting lot of his valuable time and spending lot of expenditure with a sword of conviction and sentence hanging over him, I am of the view that it is reasonable to reduce the sentence. Examining all relevant circumstances, while confirming the conviction recorded against the accused for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years imposed against him is reduced to one year by keeping the fine clause in tact. The period of detention undergone by him shall be given as set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. _____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Date: 27.6.2011 pnb