THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.15 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 Aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.12.2003 made in Criminal Appeal No.121 of 2002 by the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) Ananthapur whereby the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner in C.C.No.276 of 1999 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Ananthapur by judgment dated 04.04.2002 was confirmed, the accused preferred this revision. 2 Brief facts are that P.W.1 i.e. the Inspector of Prohibition and Excise Gooty along with his staff went on raids on 08.11.1997. On the said day at 4.30 p.m. in the outskirts of Bondalavada village, he arrested S.Ramaraju and Buse Nagalakshmi and seized 20 liters of ID Liquor under a special report. From there they reached Bondaladinne Boya Kottalapalli village to arrest one Talari Pakkrimma and seized 10 liters of ID Liquor under a special report. From there they all went to Narpala in a jeep driven by P.W.2 and picked up the Excise Staff who went there to detect the excise offences. At about 8.00 p.m the petitioner along with others stopped the jeep near Anantha Grameena Bank and abused P.W.1 and their staff. In that connection a case in Cr.No.53 of 1997 was registered for the offences punishable under sections 353, 225 r/w 34 of IPC. After investigation the police filed the charge sheet and the same was taken on file by the trial court as C.C.No.276 of 1999. 3 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. The trial court having analysed the said evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offences and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under section 353 of IPC, and further sentenced him to simple imprisonment for a period of nine months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. However, the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 4 The petitioner questioned the said judgment dated 04.04.2002 by way of Criminal Appeal No.121 of 2002 and the learned V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ananthapur while concurring with the findings given by the trial court, dismissed the said appeal by his judgment dated 22.12.2003. Questioning the same, the petitioner preferred this revision. 5 Heard. 6 The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but however, requested t he court to take a lenient view in so far as the said sentence is concerned. 7 In the light of the said submission this court looked into the record. As seen from the record, the appeal was dismissed on 22.12.2003 and the petitioner was taken into custody on the same day itself and it is only after admission of this revision and granting of bail by this court on 08.01.2004, the petitioner came out of the jail. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner was in jail for a period of eighteen days. As the said sentence imposed by the courts below is only imprisonment for nine months and six months, which were directed to run concurrently, and as the petitioner was in jail for about 18 days and since the offence is of the year 1997, this court takes a lenient view. 8 Accordingly, the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the courts below for the offence punishable under section 353 and 225 of IPC is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. Excepting the above modification, in all other aspects this revision is dismissed. -------------- 09.11.2010 Kvsn