THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.577 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioners herein-Accused No.2 and 3 were tried by the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in C.C.No.203 of 1993 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 IPC and Section 24 of Emigration Act. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-55. On behalf of the defence, none was examined, but Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioners guilty of the said offences and accordingly, by his judgment, dated 11.02.2003, convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and further, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 24 of Emigration Act. The learned Magistrate further directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The said judgment was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2003 and the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners-accused insofar as the offence punishable under the Emigration Act, but, as regards the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, reduced the same from one year to six months. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court and filed this Revision. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that P.Ws.1 and 2 and other applied for jobs by seeing an advertisement in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper, dated 17.08.1984 published by Management Professionals Association (M.P.A) for the posts of Crane-Operators in Saudi Arabia. They applied to the said posts to the address given in the advertisement i.e., “R.C.P.B.No.455, T.Nagar, Madras”. The terms of agreement between P.Ws.1, 2 and others and the accused are that if the accused fail to provide jobs to P.Ws.1 and 2 and others, they will return the said sum of Rs.6,000/- collected from each of them towards guidance fee, after 180 days. The accused failed to provide jobs. As such, A-2 and A-3 issued cheques to P.Ws.1 and 2 and others towards repayment of the guidance fee, as per the agreement, and when the said cheques were presented in the bank, they were bounced. Hence, in this connection on a complaint given by one P.Venkatarao in the Court of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, the learned Magistrate referred the same to the Police and that, the Police after investigation into the case, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. When this matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that it is not a case for interference on merits, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioners are in jail for about more than 2 ½ months. Having heard the said submissions, this Court looked into the record. From the calender of the said C.C., it is evident that the petitioners were apprehended and sent to jail on 26.04.2001 and were released on bail on 03.07.2001. From this, it is clear that the petitioners have suffered a sentence of about more than 2 months. Further, as the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused is only six months and the accused have already undergone a sentence of about 2 ½ months, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence under Section 420 IPC imposed on the petitioners-accused by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, by the judgment, dated 20.12.2003, passed in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2003, is reduced to that of the period already undergone by them, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 03rd February 2011 DR