THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.709 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated 29.12.2010 made by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada in Crl.A.No.70 of 2009 confirming the judgment dated 8.4.2009 made in C.C.No.26 of 2008 by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram, East Godavari District. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: On 28.9.2006 at 11 a.m., P.W.2 along with mediators P.W.1 and K. Lovaraju (L.W.4) and other staff, went to the house of the accused and found him in possession of a can containing 20 liters of I.D. arrack and also found two gunny bags containing 100 kgs of black jaggery. Then, P.W.2 arrested the accused and seized the contraband under the cover of Ex.P1- mediators’ report. Basing on it, a case in Cr.No.227 of 2006 was registered and investigated into. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.26 of 2008. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused guilty of the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one month. The said judgment was questioned by way of filing an appeal in Crl.A.No.70 of 2009 before the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming judgment of the trial Court. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioner 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 having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been in jail for about two and half months. Heard and perused the material available on record. 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 judgment of the appellate Court does not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the accused is wandering around the Courts since 2006 and in view of the fact that the petitioner has been in jail for about two and half months, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case wherein a lenient view can be taken insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the lower appellate Court for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act against the petitioner-accused is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act imposed against the petitioner herein viz., Vanum Srinu by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada in Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2009, by judgment dated 29.12.2010, is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner has already undergone, while maintaining the sentence insofar as the fine is concerned. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Except the above modification, in all other aspects, the revision case stands dismissed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 8th March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.709 of 2011 8.3.2011