HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.745 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned II-Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam, in Crl.A.No.21 of 2010 dated 25.02.2011, whereby the learned Judge, while confirming the conviction imposed against the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 338 of I.P.C., reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months imposed against him by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam, , in C.C.No.302 of 2009 dated 10.02.2010, to three months rigorous imprisonment. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.07.2008 at about 08.00 hours, P.Ws.1 to 4, 6 to 8 boarded the Auto bearing No.A.P.30- U-9427 at Chinnakongaram village to go to Srikakulam and when the said Auto reached near PBC factory at Ponnada village, the accused drove the said Auto at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over it and due to application of sudden brake, the Auto turned turtle, as result of which P.Ws.1 to 4, 6 to 8 sustained simple and grievous injuries. The accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of I.P.C. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16 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 337 and 338 of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 337 of I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 338 of I.P.C. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner-accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, while setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused for the offence under Section 337 of I.P.C., confirmed the conviction imposed against the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 338 of I.P.C. and reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months imposed against the revision petitioner-accused to three months rigorous imprisonment.. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-accused preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the appellate Court has given sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the revision petitioner-accused. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the quantum of sentence, it may be mentioned that the revision petitioner-accused is in jail from the date of judgment of the appellate Court i.e., from 25.02.2011 to till date. So, it is clear from the record that the revision petitioner had undergone imprisonment for a period of eleven days. In the aforesaid circumstances and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken by reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioner to that of the period already undergone by him. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months imposed against the revision petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 338 of I.P.C. by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.21 of 2010 vide its judgment dated 25.02.2011, is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner-accused has already undergone. The revision petitioner-accused 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) 07-03-2011 Gsn.