Judgment 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad affirming the judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge by which the sole petitioner has been convicted under S. 397 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, Prahlad Roy (P. W. 1) was employed in the Ramesh Trading Company and was in the charge of the office at Chirkunda. He had been residing at Purana Bazar in Dhanbad. On 18-12-1981 at about 7.30 P.M. after finishing his work, he boarded a taxi (Popularly known as trekker) at Chirkunda to go to Dhanbad along with other passengers. On the way at Kumardubbi two more passengers boarded the taxi. When the driver was taking the vehicle through a diversion on the road the said two passengers got it stopped by whipping out a revolver towards him. The informant was dragged out from the taxi by them. As commanded by the culprits the vehicle was driven away leaving the informant alone with them. The culprits thereafter snatched wrist watch and a gold ring from the informant. While the offenders were engaged in searching the person of the informant a car came from the opposite direction and stopped at that place. Rana Pratap Singh (P. W. 4) the Officer-in-charge of Nirsa Police Station got down from the said car and made enquiry from the informant. As soon as P. W. 4 alighted from the car the culprits fled away. Having learnt from the informant that he was robbed Rana Pratap Singh (P. W. 4) chased the culprits and ultimately succeeded in apprehending the petitioner. The wrist watch and the gold ring of the informant as also a country made revolver with five cartridges were recovered from the possession of the petitioner for which a seizure list (Ext. 3) was prepared. On being questioned, the petitioner disclosed his name after his arrest. The informant identified the petitioner as one of the person who had robbed him. The fardbeyan (Ext. 1) of P.W. 1 was recorded by P.W. 4 on the basis of which a formal first information report (Ext.4) was drawn up at Nirsa Police Station and after investigation charge sheet was submitted in the case. 3. In the trial Court charges under Ss. The fardbeyan (Ext. 1) of P.W. 1 was recorded by P.W. 4 on the basis of which a formal first information report (Ext.4) was drawn up at Nirsa Police Station and after investigation charge sheet was submitted in the case. 3. In the trial Court charges under Ss. 397 and 411 of the I.P.C. were framed against the petitioner but he was acquitted of the latter charge. 4. In support of the allegations five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Out of them Sukumar Das (P. W. 2) and Naresh Sao (P. W. 3) were witnessed to the seizure of the stolen articles. They were declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution case. As mentioned above Rana Pratap Singh (P.W. 4) was posted as the Officer-in-charge of Nisra Police Station on 18-12-1981. He reached at the place of occurrence while on night patrolling duty and apprehended the petitioner after chase. 5. The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court only under S. 397, I.P.C. and an appeal filed on his behalf was dismissed and hence this revision petition. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the conviction of the petitioner under S. 397, I.P .C. is not maintainable as the revolver was not used against the informant for committing this offence. He has referred to S. 398 I.P .C. which says that if at the time of attempting to commit robbery or dacoity the offender is armed with any deadly weapon the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years. Both the Ss. 397 and 398, I.P .C. alike provide that the offender found guilty shall be sentenced to imprisonment which shall not be less than seven years. It is submitted that S. 397, I.P .C. speaks about the use of deadly weapon while committing a robbery or dacoity and the latter is attracted when the offender is only armed with such a weapon. According to the learned counsel the expression Use means something more than carrying a weapon. It is urged that no injury caused by the revolver was found on the person of the informant and so there is no proof of use of the said weapon. 7. According to the learned counsel the expression Use means something more than carrying a weapon. It is urged that no injury caused by the revolver was found on the person of the informant and so there is no proof of use of the said weapon. 7. In the instant case it is not the story of the prosecution that any hurt much less grievous hurt was caused to the informant (P.W. 1) in course of the commission of the offence by any of the two culprits. P. W. 1 stated in the trial Court that one of the offenders whipped out a revolver and pointed towards the driver to compel him to stop the vehicle. He further said that as soon as the taxi was stopped one of the culprits dragged him and also removed his brief case. After he was pulled down it was driven away from that place under the threat and direction of the offenders and the petitioner and his associate thereafter snatched HMT wrist watch and a gold ring from him. He admitted that he handed over the said articles out of fear when they asked him to do so. Nowhere he stated in his evidence that the revolver was pointed out towards him. 8. Different High Courts took different view of the word "Uses" appearing in S. 397, I.P .C. one view was that the provision of this section would be applicable only when proof of actual use of deadly weapon by the offender in the commission of the robbery was produced on behalf of the prosecution. The other view was that only some overt act with the deadly weapon by the offender would constitute the offence punishable under this section. According to S.397, I.P.C. if at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt to any person he makes himself liable for punishment prescribed under it. The expression "Uses" any deadly weapon in the S. 397, I.P.C. in my view connotes something more than merely being armed with a deadly weapon. In order to bring a case under the purview of this section it has to be shown that it was used for the purpose of achieving the object by the offenders. The expression "Uses" any deadly weapon in the S. 397, I.P.C. in my view connotes something more than merely being armed with a deadly weapon. In order to bring a case under the purview of this section it has to be shown that it was used for the purpose of achieving the object by the offenders. If the offender is only found with a deadly weapon that by itself is not enough to hold him liable for conviction under this section. It has to be proved that the offender went a step further and actually accomplished his purpose by brandishing the weapon or whipping out towards the victim to keep him under the threat of death or grievous hurt. The controversy which existed at one time has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in the-case of Phool Kumar V/s. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 905 . 9. Learned counsel has also referred the evidence of P. W .5 the Investigating Officer who stated that the revolver seized from the person of the petitioner was not found in a working condition. This again shows that the revolver like substance recovered from the possession of the petitioner was not a deadly weapon. Keeping in view the evidence of P .W s. 1 and 5 it can safely be inferred that the conviction of the petitioner under S. 397, I.P .C. cannot be maintained. 10. Learned counsel has strenuously argued that on the facts of the case conviction of the petitioner even under S. 392, I.P.C. is not sustainable inasmuch as no specific question was put to him by the trial Court while recording his statement under S. 313 of the Cr. P.C. From the record it appears that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge had put all the relevant questions with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against the petitioner. 11. P. W. 1 the informant gave a detail picture of the occurrence as to how he was dragged out from the vehicle and was robbed of his gold ring, Wrist watch and a brief case. As mentioned above P. W. 4 appeared at the place of occurrence in a car and noticed the informant under the clutches of the petitioner and his associates in a suspicious circumstances. Having learnt about the occurrence he chased the offenders and apprehended the petitioner from whose possession, robbed articles were recovered. As mentioned above P. W. 4 appeared at the place of occurrence in a car and noticed the informant under the clutches of the petitioner and his associates in a suspicious circumstances. Having learnt about the occurrence he chased the offenders and apprehended the petitioner from whose possession, robbed articles were recovered. So there is ample evidence on the record to establish that the petitioner along with his associates had forcibly snatched the articles from the person of the informant and committed the offence punishable under S. 392 I.P.C. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion of the evidence and the circumstances of the case I find that the conviction of the petitioner under S. 397 I.P .C. cannot be maintained and accordingly, he is acquitted of this charge but he is held guilty for committing an offence punishable under S. 392 I.P.C. 13. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that he was arrested by the police on 18-12-1981 and since then he is in jail. The learned counsel for the State does not controvert this assertion after looking to the case record. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no material on the record to show that he was involved earlier in any criminal case, so submission has been made to take lenient view with regard to the sentence proposed to be passed against the petitioner. Under the facts and circumstances of the case while convicting the petitioner under S. 392, I.P.C. his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. 14. In the result this revision petition is dismissed with the modification in conviction and sentence as mentioned above. The petitioner will be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.