IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1239 OF 2004 BETWEEN: P. Lokesh Babu S/o. Krishna Prasad …. Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1239 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), is filed by the petitioner – accused against the judgment dated 26-07-2004 in Criminal Appeal No.568 of 2001 passed by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereunder and whereby, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 25(1b) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week, recorded in the judgment dated 05-11- 2001 in C.C. No.351 of 1997 by the learned IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, were confirmed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the revision case may be stated as follows: On 06-12-1995 at about 5-00 PM, PW-2 Inspector of Police received credible information about certain offences and secured the presence of PWs.1 and 4 and proceeded to Railpet, Guntur along with staff. When they reached near the place of occurrence, one person was running away from that place and the police apprehended that person and found him carrying a country made 6 Chambered revolver and seized the same from his possession. Then, the police prepared Ex.P-3 Mahazar proceedings. PW-3 Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case under Section 5 read with 25(1b) (a) of the Arms Act. The accused was sent to judicial custody. The seized weapon was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. The analyst opined that it is a country made 6 Chambered revolver, it is chambering 380” caliber revolver catridges, in working order and is within the purview of the Arms Act. After obtaining necessary sanction from the District Magistrate, the police filed the charge sheet. 3. When a charge under Section 25 (1b) (a) of the Arms 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 P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8, besides case property M.O.1. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explained the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. The accused did not choose to examine any witness and nor mark any documents on his behalf. 6. The trial Court accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 25 (1b) (a) of the Arms Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. On appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed this revision. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner – accused contends that there are discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to arrest of the petitioner and seizure of MO1; that MO1 was not produced in the Court immediately after its seizure; that the person who conducted analysis of MO1 is also not examined in the Court; that no independent witness of the locality was called to act as mediator when the accused was arrested and seizure of MO1 was effected and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgments. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contends that the concurrent findings of the Courts below need not be interfered with, that from the evidence of PWs.1 and 4, it is established that MO1 was seized from the possession of the accused; that when it was sent to the expert for opinion, the expert in his opinion under Ex.P-7 stated that MO1 is a fire arm within the meaning of the Arms Act and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgments and prays to dismiss the revision. 9. Now the point for determination is whether the findings of both the Courts below are correct, legal and proper ? 10. There cannot be any dispute that revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 IPC are truncated one. Unless it is shown that any one of the findings of the trial Court or appellate Court is perverse or not based upon any evidence or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or admissible evidence is overlooked, ordinarily, this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 11. The case of the prosecution is that PW-2 and staff along with mediators, on credible information with regard to certain offences, went to Railpet, Guntur and when they reached there, the accused was running away from the scene of offence. On suspicion, he was apprehended and on search, MO1 was found. PW-1 did not call for any independent witnesses from the locality. No doubt, sub-Section 4 of Section 100 Cr.P.C. provide that two inhabitants of the locality near the search and arrest are to be called. Because PW-2 has already secured the presence of VAO and another, he might not have called the inhabitants of the locality. Even assuming for a moment that search is illegal for not calling the two respectable inhabitants of the locality where the accused was arrested, still seizure would not in any manner affect the case of the prosecution in view of the fact that from the evidence of PWs-2 and 4 coupled with the recitals in Ex.P-3, it is clear that MO1 was seized from the possession of the accused. The police have no grouse or enmity against the petitioner so as to implicate him falsely in a case of this nature. 12. MO1 was sent to the expert for his opinion. The opinion of the expert under Ex.P-7 is to the effect that MO1 is a 6 Chambered revolver with 0.380” caliber and it is in working order and is within the meaning of the Arms Act. Under Section 293 Cr.P.C. any report given by the Director or Assistant Director of the State FSL, can be used as evidence. Therefore, examination of the expert, who issued the report, need not be summoned unless the Court thinks fit that summoning and examining such an expert is necessary. Therefore, Ex.P-7 is admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there are contradictions from the evidence of PWs.2 and 4 and therefore, that evidence has to be disbelieved. There cannot be any dispute that the contradictions or variations or inconsistencies in the evidence of two witnesses need not be taken into consideration so as to discredit their testimony, unless it is shown that those contradictions or inconsistencies go to the root of the prosecution case. If the contradictions or inconsistencies are trivial in nature, much importance cannot be given. From the evidence of PWs.2 and 4 coupled with Ex.P-3, it is clear that it is the petitioner who was in possession of MO1 and MO1 was found to be a fire arm as per Ex.P-7 expert’s opinion. Therefore, the judgment of the appellate Court needs no interference by this Court. 14. The Criminal Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed confirming the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.568 of 2001 dated 26-07-2004. Period of remand, 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. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J June 24, 2010 KTL