HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1331 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, in Crl.A.No.401 of 2007 dated 04.02.2008 confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 382 of I.P.C., imposed against the revision petitioner-accused No.1, by the learned XI-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, in C.C.No.364 of 2007 dated 10.09.2007. It is the case of the prosecution that on 05.03.2007 at about 8-00 A.M. when P.W.2 distributing milk to the customers by walk and after reaching S.P. colony, the accused 1 and 2 came on Hero Honda Motor Cycle and snatched away gold chain weighing about three tulas, worth about Rs.27,000/, from her neck. On the complaint of P.W.1, a case in crime No.35 of 2007 was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 382 of I.P.C. and after completion of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirumalgherry Police Station, Secunderabad filed charge sheet against the accused for the said offence. The accused were tried for the offence punishable under Section 382 of I.P.C. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1 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-A1 and another guilty of the offence punishable under Section 382 of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner-A1 against the said conviction and sentence, the learned VI- Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-A1 preferred this criminal revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-A1 fairly conceded that this is not a fit case to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, but, however, he requested this Court to take a lenient view in the matter since the petitioner-A1 is in jail for a period of more than two years and in support of his contention he produced confinement certificate dated 13.07.2010 issued by the Superintendent Central Prison, Cherlapalli. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. From a perusal of the aforesaid confinement certificate, it is clear that the petitioner-A1 i.e., Khaja Wahabuddin was taken into custody on 11.09.2008 in connection with C.C.No.364 of 2007, which is impugned in this revision. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have given sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the revision petitioner-A1. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, since the petitioner-A1 is in jail from 11.09.2008 and that he had undergone imprisonment for a period of more than two years and since the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below is three years, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken by reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioner-A1. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years imposed against the revision petitioner-A1 herein for the offence punishable under Section 382 of I.P.C. by the learned XI-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, in C.C.No.364 of 2007 and as confirmed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs & S.Ts. (POA) Act-cum-VI- Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, in Criminal Appeal No.401 of 2007, is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner has already undergone.. The petitioner-A1 is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Except the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 19-10-2010 Gsn.