HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1880 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned X-Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Anakapalle, in Crl.A.No.66 of 2003 dated 28.10.2004 confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. imposed against the revision petitioners-A1 to A3 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anakapalle, in C.C.No.213 of 1997 dated 17.09.2003. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15.05.1997 at about 7.30 A.M. there was an altercation between P.Ws.1 and 2 and the accused with regard to repayment of hand loan and that the accused beat P.Ws.1 and 2 with sticks causing injuries. The accused were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and 325 of I.P.C. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and M.Os.1 to 3 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused Exs.D1 to D8 were marked. On perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the revision petitioners- accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner- accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned X-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anakapalle, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners-A1 to A3 preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that this is not a fit case to interfere with the findings recorded by both the Courts, but, however, he requested this Court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that both the Courts have given sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the petitioners-accused. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the quantum of sentence, it is clear from the record that the criminal appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court on 28.10.2004 and the revision petitioners were taken into custody on the same day itself and that the petitioners-accused came out of the jail by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 01.11.2004 after admitting this revision. So it is clear from the record that the petitioners were in jail for a period of about one week. In the aforesaid circumstances and since the alleged offence took place on 15.05.1997, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken by reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioners to that of the period already undergone by them. In the result, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year imposed against the revision petitioners-A1 to A3 by the Courts below for the offence with which they were charged, is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioners-A1 to A3 have already undergone. The revision petitioners-A1 to A3 is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with the above said modification. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 24-02-2011 Gsn.