ORDER :

1. This is a Criminal Revision Case is filed on behalf of the petitioner, who was the appellant, questioning the judgment, dated 08.08.2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2006, on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, where under the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner in C.C. No. 227 of 2003, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasthi, dated 22.03.2006.

2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief according to the charge sheet filed by the State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, K.V.B. Puram Police Station, is as follows:

On 22.09.2002 at about 1-00 P.M. the Sub-Inspector of Police and staff of K.V.B. Puram Police Station, were conducting combing operation against the naxlities movement towards east side on forest area, near Brahmanalpalli Harijanawada. While so, at about 4-00 P.M. the Sub-Inspector of Police and staff heard fire arm firing sound and then they searched the area and found the accused in possession of S.B.M.L. Gun. The Sub-Inspector of Police under the cover of police proceedings, seized the said gun and arrested the accused and registered Crime No. 41 of 2002 under Section 25 (1B)(a) of Arms Act and investigated into. During investigation, he forwarded the accused to the concerned Court for remand. On 07.10.2002 the un-licensed S.B.M.L. Gun was sent to F.S.L. Hyderabad, for examination through Additional Munsif Magistrate, Srikalahasthi. The Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, examined the same and opined that Item No. 1 is a country made S.B.M.L. Gun and it is working condition and it comes under the purview of the Arms Act. On 02.06.2003, the Collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor, issued sanction order to prosecute the accused. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet is filed.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasthi, took cognizance under Section 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act, against the accused and on appearance of the accused and after complying the formalities as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short), examined him under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the offence. Then, a charge under Section 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act was framed against the accused and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution during the course of trial, got examined PWs. 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1. After the closure of evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. He denied the incriminating circumstances and reported no defence evidence.

5. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasthi, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act and convicted him under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, imposed simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment three months. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the trial Court, the present Revision Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2006 before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tiurpati and the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, by virtue of the judgment, dated 08.08.2008, dismissed the same confirming the judgment of the trial Court in C.C. No. 227 of 2003, dated 22.03.2006. As against the judgment of the appellate Court, the unsuccessful appellant therein filed the present Revision Case challenging the same.

6. Now, in deciding the present Revision Case, the point that arises