ORDER The petitioners/accused have filed this criminal revision case against the conviction and sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000 under Sec.436, I.P.C. awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court I, Thanjavur on 28.3.2003. 2. The charge against the petitioners/accused is to the effect that on 9.11.1999 about 3.00 a.m. both the accused, due to previous enmity, set fire to the shop of P.W.1 Jayaraman and caused damage to the properties worth about Rs.2,50,000 and thereby committed offence under Sec.436, I.P.C. 3. The prosecution has examined ten witnesses. After have considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses, Exhibits and M.Os. marked thereof, the trial Court viz., Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur has found that both the accused have committed the offence under Sec.436 I,.P.C. and consequently convicted each of them to seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000 in default one year rigorous imprisonment. On appeal in C.A.No.2 of 2003 before the Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court I, Thanjavur, the Additional Sessions Judge also has come to the conclusion that both the petitioners/accused have committed the offence under Sec.436, I.P.C. by setting fire to the shop of P.W.1 Jayaraman and convicted both the petitioners/accused and modified the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment instead of seven years rigorous imprisonment and confirmed the judgment and conviction of the Trial Court in other respects. 4. I have gone through the entire evidence available for the prosecution in depth. From such perusal, I am able to see the following important aspects. P.W.1 Jayaraman is running a shop “Rajam Coffee Works” at Thirukattupalli for the past nearly 48 years. P.W.1 was running the shop as tenant under P.W.2 Murugesan from the year 1954 to 1972 and then he was running the shop as mortgagee under P.W.2 from the year 1972 to 1992 and then P.W.1 purchased the shop in March, 1992 and has been conducting the shop thereon as owner. He came to know about the setting of fire upon his shop through one watchman viz., Maruthamuthu as directed by P.W.2 Murugesan at about 3.00 a.m. on 9.11.1999. He came to know about the setting of fire upon his shop through one watchman viz., Maruthamuthu as directed by P.W.2 Murugesan at about 3.00 a.m. on 9.11.1999. Immediately, he went to the shop and was able to see that smoke was forthcoming from his shop and then fire service people came there and the petitioners/accused protested the fire service people as not to put off the fire and the petitioners/accused were all along threatening P.W.1 eversince his purchase from P.W.2.The first petitioner/accused viz., Arumugham is the brother of P.W.2 Murugesan and second petitioner/accused viz., Suresh is the son of the first accused. The properties like Coffee Powder Grinding Machine and other accessories and the properties concerned in the shop were damaged worth about Rs.2,00,000. It also seems that there is litigation pending from the year 1994 between P.W.1 and the first accused Arumugham. It is also the evidence of P.W.1 that even at the time the shop was under fire, both the accused were upon the upstairs. 5. P.W.2 Murugesan also has admitted his close relationship with both the accused and at about 3.00 a.m. on 9.11.1999, he came to know about the setting of fire from the adjacent street people and he rushed to the shop and was able to see that his door in the shop was already burnt besides some other things. At the same time, the shop of P.W.1 also was under fire and fire service people and other persons were able to putoff the fire. P.W.3 viz., Marimuthu who is the Accountant of P.W.1 at Rajam Coffee Works has spoken to the effect that he knows the accused and while he was proceeding to his field at about 3.00 a.m. on 9.11.1999, he was able to see that the shop of P.W.1 was set fire. The above said Maruthamuthu along with P.W.1 was trying to put off the fire. P.W.3 also has stated that he also tried to put off the fire and at that time, the petitioners/accused closed the door in the upstairs and ran away and he was also present at the time when the police came to the spot and prepared observation mahazar and seizure mahazar. P.W.4, Dakshinamurthy also has spoken to the effect that he was present at the time when the police came to the spot and prepared observation mahazar, seizure mahazar, etc. P.W.4, Dakshinamurthy also has spoken to the effect that he was present at the time when the police came to the spot and prepared observation mahazar, seizure mahazar, etc. from the occurrence place viz., the shop of P.W.1. P.W.5 viz., Sivasangu has spoken about the fact that the accused gave confession to the Inspector of Police and the first accused Arumugham also put his signature in the confession and the same was attested by one Balasubramaniam and himself and then the Inspector of Police was able to recover the match box that was used for setting fire upon P.W.1’s shop. P.W.6 viz., Joseph the fire service man has spoken about the occurrence. He says that at the early morning on 9.11.1999, information was received through telephone and local people about the fire upon P.W.1’s shop and himself and his team proceeded to the place and put off the fire. P.W.7 viz., one Sivasamy has spoken about the fact that he knows both the accused and at about 2.30 a.m, while he was proceeding from his house, he came to see that P.W.1’s shop was on fire at about 3.00 a.m. and after seeing him, both the accused closed the door and then people assembled there. P.W.8 viz., Babu has spoken about the fact the he was the concerned Junior Engineer in Electricity Board and on 9.11.1999, he inspected the shop of P.W.1 as per the request of the Inspector of Police and on inspection, he gave a report on 10.11.1999 stating that the fire accident was not due to any leakage of electricity. P.W.9 viz., Khader Hussain, Sub Inspector of Police has spoken about the fact that on 9.11.1999, he was the concerned Sub Inspector of Police at Thirukattupalli Police Station and on a complaint preferred by P.W.1 Jayaraman, he registered a case as Crime No.305 of 1999 under Sec.436, I.P.C. prepared F.I.R. (marked as Ex.P.5) and sent the F.I.R. for further investigation. The evidence of these witnesses is not shown to be false or unbelievable in the practical approach during the cross examination made on behalf of the accused. 6. The fact remains that there was previous litigation and previous enmity eversince the purchase made by P.W.1 from P.W.2. The evidence of these witnesses is not shown to be false or unbelievable in the practical approach during the cross examination made on behalf of the accused. 6. The fact remains that there was previous litigation and previous enmity eversince the purchase made by P.W.1 from P.W.2. Further, the fact remains that the shop of P.W.1 was destroyed by fire at about 3.00 a.m. on 9.11.1999 and the articles kept inside the shop also were damaged to the tune of Rs.2,00,000. Further, the fact remains as if fire was not due to electricity leakage. The vital and significant factor is that the accused were found in the nearby premises and they have gone to the extent of protesting the fire service people and other persons as not to put off the fire and that there is no reason as to why other witnesses should give evidence falsely against the accused and in support of the police. 7. It is also to be noted that it cannot be normally expected that there should be a direct eye-witness that too when the occurrence is said to have taken place in the early morning at about 3.00 a.m. and anybody would set fire in the presence of witnesses. It is also stated by P.W.1 that the accused were able to set fire through chimney and in the fire, the door of P.W.2’s shop was also burnt. Therefore, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have considered and appreciated the evidence in detail and then only come to the conclusion that the accused are responsible for the damage of P.W.1’s shop due to fire and they have committed offence under Sec.436, I.P.C. Further, the imprisonment of seven years rigorous imprisonment has been modified by the Appellate Court to five years rigorous imprisonment. In the circumstances, I do not find reliable and acceptable grounds to revise the conviction and sentence of the Appellate Court as wrong or unjustified or illegal. 8. I am further of the view that there is no irregularity or illegality or perverse finding in a way to invite this Court to exercise the revisional jurisdiction as contemplated under Sec.397 read with Sec.401, Crl.P.C. for the purpose of setting aside the conviction and sentence given by the Court below. Accordingly, the Crl.R.C. has no merits and consequently, the same is dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Crl.R.C. has no merits and consequently, the same is dismissed. 9. The Trial Court is directed to secure the custody of the accused to enable them to undergo the remaining period of sentence.