THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1140 of 2004 Dated:17.06.2011 Between: Yeddula Narayana Reddy @ Narayana ……Appellant And: State of A.P., rep. By its PP., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …..Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1140 of 2004 ORDER: This revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against judgment dated 30.06.2004 delivered by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa in Crl.A.No.172 of 2002, confirming conviction and sentence awarded by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kadapa in C.C.No.234 of 2001 dated 07.06.2002, whereby the petitioner herein was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six moths and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of it to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for offence punishable under Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act. The facts of the case briefly are as follows: On 25.12.2000, the Sub Inspector of Police and his staff, Pendlimarri found the revision petitioners/accused at his hayrick on Gosulavaripalli metal road that on seeing them, he tried to run away, that the S.I of Police along with his men chased and caught hold of him on 25.12.2000, that he led them into the hayrick and produced 19 country made bombs kept in a plastic bucket, that as no mediators came forward, they were seized under cover of police proceedings and that on that basis the case was registered against the revision petitioner/accused. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 and M.Os.1 and 2 . In spite of posting the matter under the caption of ‘for orders’, no representation has been made on behalf of the appellant. Heard learned Public Prosecutor. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to allow the petition. I have perused the record. On the perusal of the record, it is clear that both the courts below examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and hence there is no reason to interfere with the findings given by both the courts. Further, it is a case of 2001 and ever since the petitioner has been wandering around the courts and in that connection he might have lost his valuable time and money and also suffered to a great extent particularly after imposing the conviction and sentence. Hence, it is quite reasonable to reduce the sentence to simple imprisonment of three (3) months from rigorous imprisonment of 6 months while keeping the fine clause intact. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is disposed of with the above observation. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J. 17th June, 2011 GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1140 of 2004 Date:17.06.2011 Gk.