THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1855 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 11.10.2004 made in Crl.A.No.14 of 2004 by the VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The complainant is an employee of Railways and the petitioner- accused is the nephew of the complainant. He approached the complainant and impressed to invest the 1/4th share of capital in the limited company being started by him. By way of his representations, the accused induced the complainant to give him a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- between the period from 5.11.1990 to 26.7.1991 at his residence in the picket, Secunderabad. Subsequently, he executed an acknowledgement after several demands. The accused with dishonest intention to deceive the complainant informed that shares worth of Rs.1,50,000/- was allotted him, but he did not allot the shares for the rest of the amount despite several requests. The complainant also demanded to return the said amount if shares are not allotted. But, the accused paid deaf year and dodged the matter. On 11.3.1994, the accused addressed a letter informing the accused that the general body meeting will be held in the second week of April, 1994, but later informed that it was postponed to 28th September, 1994, but when the complainant went to the venue, there was no meeting. Later, the accused on 10.6.1999 sent a reply falsely alleging that the shares for the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- were allotted in the name of the complainant’s brother and his wife, as required by the complainant. In fact, there were no contacts and communications between the complainant and his brother. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 9.7.1999 demanding him to return the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. But he did not give any reply. Therefore, the complainant filed a private complaint and the same was referred to the police and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 IPC. The learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, took cognizance of the same and numbered it as C.C.No.622 of 2000. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused not guilty of the offence under section 420 IPC, but found him guilty for the offence under section 406 IPC and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.14 of 2004 before the Special Judge for the trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-the VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge- cum- XX Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad. The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction recorded by the Court below, but modified the sentence of simple imprisonment of six months to three months, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed by the Court below. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioner-accused filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but he requested to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of 17 days. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused, I feel that the judgments of the Courts below do not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been wandering around the Courts since 2000 and in view of the fact that the petitioner-accused was in jail for a period of 17 days, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the lower appellate Court against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 406 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under section 406 IPC imposed by the lower appellate Court on the petitioner-accused is reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 24th March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1855 of 2004 24.3.2011