THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.745 of 2004 Dated:27.04.2011 Between: V. Ajay ……Appellant And: State of A.P., rep. By its PP., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …..Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.745 of 2004 ORDER: This revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against judgment dated 15.4.2004 delivered by X Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Guntur in Crl.A.No.97 of 2003, confirming conviction and sentence awarded by the IV Additional Munisif Magistrate, Guntur in C.C.No.202 of 2002 dated 21.2.2003, whereby the petitioner herein was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of it to suffer simple imprisonment for one month with a direction to set off his remand period under Section 428 Cr.PC. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 21.3.2002 at abut 5.00 a.m some unknown offenders committed theft of gold chain with ‘Mangalasutram’ and rope from the neck of the wife of M.Narasimhareddy in the hospital of Srinivasa Rao at Kothapet, Guntur and later on the report of M.Narasimha Reddy police registered the case in Cr.No.141 of 2002 under Section 380 of IPC. During the course of investigation on 21.3.2002 at 8.30 p.m concerned S.I of Police arrested the accused at Naaz center near Water tanks, Guntur in the presence of E. Srinivasa Rao and N. Sannibabu and seized the stolen property from the possession of accused under cover of ‘mahazar’ and later sent the accused to the court for remand. Hence, the charge. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.Os.1 to 3. None examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that the petitioner had undergone simple imprisonment for a period of 85 days apart from paying the fine amount and hence the sentence imposed on him may be modified to the period already under gone by him. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has pleaded no objection. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to allow the petition or to modify the sentence as prayed for? I have perused the record. On the perusal of the record, it is clear that both the courts below examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and hence there is no reason to interfere with the findings given by both the courts below. Further it is a case of 2002 and ever since the petitioner has been wandering around the courts below and in that connection he might have lost his valuable time and money and also suffered to a great extent particularly after imposing the conviction and sentence. It is informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested on 22.3.2002 and was released on bail on 7.6.2002 and thereafter he was also in jail for a period of 10 days after the pronouncement of judgement by the courts below. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case while confirming the findings of the courts below, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence to the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is disposed of with the above observation. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J. 27th April, 2011 GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.745 of 2004 Date:27.04.2011 Gk.