K. Harilal, J.

The Revision petitioner is the accused in CC.No.791/2006 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva as well as the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.932/2008 on the files of Addl.District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III), N.Paravur. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 109 and 506(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the Revision Petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He was found not guilty for the offence under Section 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code. Though, he had preferred the above appeal, the appellate court also confirmed the conviction and sentence as such without any interference. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the Revision Petitioner along with the other accused entered into the private bus stand with a sword in his hand and caused an alarming situation in the bus stand by brandishing the sword and threatened the passengers that he would stab each of them to death. The other accused also shouted and intimidated the people gathered in the bus stand as passengers and openly abetted the Revision Petitioner to stab them to death. Thus the Revision Petitioner along with other accused committed the offence alleged against them. In this Revision petition, the counsel for the Revision Petitioner has raised three contentions. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the Revision Petitioner was found not guilty under Section 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the allegation of intimidation stands not proved. So he cannot be further convicted for an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The second contention is that the prosecution had no case that he had used the sword so as to attract the offence punishable under Section 5(1) of the Arms Act. There is no evidence to show that the sword was put in usage. Therefore he cannot be found guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Coming to the evidence, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 4 and marked Exts.P1 to P3 and MO1 sword. No evidence was adduced by the accused. There were three occurrence witnesses; among them Pws.1 to 3 are police officers who arrested the accused from the place of occurrence. Pws.4 and 5 are independent witnesses who turned hostile. Pw1, one of the police officers who arrested the accused from the spot deposed that on 19.6.2001 at 5.30 pm, the police received an information stating that two persons were seen standing in the Aluva private bus stand with a sword in hand and the accused was seen threatening the public by brandishing the sword and thereby causing an alarming situation in the private bus stand. Thereupon, Pw1 along with Pws.2 and 3 reached the private bus stand and they saw the accused with MO1 sword in his hand and threatening the passengers. He further deposed that, one person was found threatening passengers by brandishing sword held in his hand and other person was found openly instigating the former to stab passengers to death. On seeing the police they made an attempt to ran away from the place. But, he caught hold of him and seized the sword held in his hand. Pws.2 and 3 who accompanied Pw1 also deposed in the same way in consonance with the evidence of Pw1. After considering the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 the trial court found that the evidence of Pw1 is well corroborated by the evidence of Pws.2 and 3. Pw1 who seized the sword identified the same before the trial court also. Their evidence further gets assurance from Exts.P1 to P3 as prosecution documents prepared contemporaneously at the time of arrest of the accused and seizure of MO1 sword. The accuse