THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1803 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 The petitioner and two others were tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kothavalasa in Vizianagaram District in C.C.No.101 of 1998 for the offence punishable under section 8 (b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act. The trial court, after full fledged trial, while acquitting the third accused of the said charge, found the petitioner and another guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year each. The said judgment dated 19.12.2000 was questioned by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2001 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram by his judgment dated 28.11.2003 while confirming the said findings given by the trial court dismissed the said appeal. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner who is the first accused approached this court and filed the present revision. 2 Brief facts are that on 31.12.1996 at about 4.00 a.m. while P.W.1 and his staff were on route watch at a distance of 2 km away from Kothavalasa railway station, the found accused 1 and 2 going towards Pendurthi side on a scooter bearing No.AP 31 D 9207 carrying two gunny bags containing 37 bottles of 750 ML each and 61 bottles of 375 ML each respectively. The accused confessed that the scooter belongs to the third accused in the said case. Thereafter the accused were arrested, the contraband was seized and samples were sent to Chemical examiner. In that connection a case in P.R.No.299 & 300/96-97 for the offence punishable under section 8 (b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act was registered and investigated into and after completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet. 3 Heard. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but requested this court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence imposed on the petitioner is concerned. 5 From the record it is clear that the appeal was dismissed on 28.11.2003 and he came out of the jail by virtue of the bail granted by this court on 05.12.2003 after admitting this revision. So it is clear that the petitioner was in jail for a period of about ten days. 6 Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of ten days, and having regard to the fact that the offence is of the year 1996 and inasmuch as the petitioner was made roaming from one court to another for all these years, this court is of the opinion that a lenient view may be taken. 7 Accordingly, the said sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months imposed on the petitioner by the courts below is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner has already undergone. Excepting the above modification this revision in all other aspects is dismissed. -------------- 28.10.2010 Kvsn