THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1524 OF 2008 AND 75 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER:- Both the Revisions arise out of a common judgment, dated 07.11.2005, in C.C.No.137 of 2005 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor whereunder the revision petitioners were convicted for an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. As against that, Criminal Appeal No.286 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor was preffered, which confirmed the judgment of the lower Court on 01.08.2008. Aggrieved by that, A-1 and A-2 preferred Criminal Revision Case Nos.1524 of 2008 and 75 of 2009 respectively. 2. The case of the Prosecution is that the accused person are involved in Sessions Case No.106 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge at Chittoor and when the matter was posted for trial, on 30.07.2002, the de facto complainant- M.Raghunatha Reddy-P.W.1, who was a witness, was being briefed by the Additional Public Prosecutor-P.Rajaram-P.W.2, the accused person threatened P.W.3 and other witnesses in the said Sessions Case by showing deadly weapons. Thereafter, the accused were apprehended as per the direction of P.W.2 and on search, they were found to be in possession of knives, which were seized by the police. As the accused were found in possession of arms without any license, they have been charged for the offences under Sections 27 and 30 of the Act and they pleaded not guilty. After considering the evidence on record and after framing necessary charges, both the Courts below have found the accused guilty of being in possession of arms and accordingly convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Act. 3. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the conviction and sentences imposed against the accused persons are legal and sustainable?” 4. Point:- So far as the nature of the incident is concerned, the evidence of P.W.1 and essentially, the evidence of P.W.2-Additional Public Prosecutor clearly goes to show that the accused was apprehended on 30.07.2002 and the police said to have seized the weapons. P.W.3 also supported the same and P.Ws.4 and 5 also supported the seizure of the weapons. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 also establishes the seizure of the knives. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/appellants contends that the Prosecution has not proved that the knives, which were under possession of the accused, were notified as prohibited arms, since the description was not given either in the charge or when the accused were questioned. But however as can be seen from the Panchanama, the length of the knives was clearly given and it discloses the description and the length of the knives, which attracts the prohibited arms. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that immediately the bail of the revision petitioners/accused was cancelled and they were remanded to custody and subsequently after the trial, the accused were acquitted in the Sessions Case No.106 of 2001. Evidently, the accused have not used the weapons in their possession and as rightly contended by the counsel for the revision petitioners, the offence attracts punishment under Section 25 (1B)(b) of the Act and the accused persons are old and in fact, they have faced the trial in both the cases. According to him, taking into consideration of the above facts, some leniency may be shown to the revision petitioners/accused in the sentence. Taking into consideration the fact that the accused have faced the trial and have been originally acquitted in Sessions Case No.106 of 2001 and also there is no proof of use of the knives though the possession is an offence, I feel that the ends of justice would meet if the sentence of imprisonment is confined to the period already undergone and fine is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- including the amount of Rs.500/- already imposed by the lower Court. In case of failure to pay the enhanced fine of Rs.1,500/- within six (6) weeks from today, the accused shall suffer the imprisonment as imposed by the Courts below. 6. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Cases are partly allowed. ____​________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 20th December, 2011 AMD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1524 OF 2008 AND 75 OF 2009 Date:20.12.2011 AMD