THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Crl.R.C.No.1114 of 2004 ORDER This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 01.07.2004, passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Kakinada in Crl.A.No.234 of 2003, wherein the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tuni, in S.T.C.No.13 of 2002, was confirmed. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner/accused was carrying business in cashew nuts under the name and style of ‘Satya Deva Traders’. During the course of his business, he failed to pay the market fee. Though the complainant got issued a legal notice, dated 20.08.2001, the accused neither paid the amount nor gave any reply. Hence, he filed a complaint against the petitioner and the same was registered as S.T.C. No.13 of 2002 under Section 12(1) read with Section 23 of Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Animal Husbandry) Market, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked on behalf of the first respondent- complainant. No evidence was adduced and no document was marked on behalf of the petitioner/accused. 4. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 12(1) read with Section 23 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.234 of 2003. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence, the lower appellate Court dismissed the said appeal modifying the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court from one year to six months simple imprisonment. Hence, this revision. 5. Heard. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though it is not a fit case to acquit the petitioner, but a lenient view can be taken in the case of the petitioner. 7. This Court while admitting this revision on 08.07.2004, granted bail to the petitioner on his executing a personal bond for Rs.5,000/-with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tuni. From this, it is clear that he was in jail from 01.07.2004 to 09.07.2004 i.e., for a period of about nine days. In those circumstances and in the light of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the trial Court and modified by the lower appellate Court can be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner for the offence under Section 12(1) read with Section 23 of the Act is reduced from six months simple imprisonment to the period already undergone by him. Except the said modification, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date:03.02.2011 sj