HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.724 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned III-Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court-II), Khammam, in Crl.A.No.99 of 2002 dated 05.06.2003 by which the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioner- accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. in C.C.No.367 of 1998 by the learned I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, was reduced from two years to one year, while confirming the sentence of fine of Rs.1,000/- and also the sentence of simple imprisonment of six months imposed for the offence punishable under Section 338 of I.P.C. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 to prove the guilt of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the revision petitioner-accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304-A of I.P.C. and 338 of I.P.C and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. and further convicted and sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 338 of I.P.C. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner- accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court-II), Khammam, reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from two years to one year for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C., while confirming the sentence of fine of Rs.1,000/- and also the sentence of simple imprisonment of six months imposed for the offence punishable under Section 338 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-accused preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. This Court, on 13.06.2003, while suspending the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioner-accused, enlarged the revision petitioner on bail. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 18.04.2007, neither the revision petitioner- accused nor his Counsel was present and hence this Court issued Non-bailable warrant of arrest against the revision petitioner-accused and further observed that after his arrest, he should be lodged in jail to serve the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by the trial Court as modified by the appellate Court. In the light of the aforesaid order passed by this Court on 18.04.2007, the police executed the N.B.W against the revision petitioner on 18.05.2007 and produced the revision petitioner before the appellate Court on the same day and then he was sent to Central Prison, Warangal to serve the sentence of imprisonment imposed against him by the appellate Court. In that regard, the Sub Inspector of Police, Khammam III-Town Police Station submitted a report dated 19.05.2007, which was received by this Court on 26.05.2007. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-accused had undergone the entire sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the appellate Court. The said submission made by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner appears to be true since there is no material to show that the petitioner was released on bail subsequent to his arrest on 18.05.2007 pursuant to the Non Bailable Warrant issued by this Court. Having regard to the aforesaid submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the revision petitioner had undergone the entire sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the appellate Court, this Court is of the view that no further orders are required to be passed in this revision. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly disposed of. ____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 15-07-2010 Gsn.