HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.229 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, in Crl.A.No.141 of 2001 dated 06.02.2004, confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 338 I.P.C., imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, in C.C.No.161 of 2000 dated 15.02.2001. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.09.1999 at 2.00 P.M. while PW.1 was going on his cycle along with PW.2, the revision petitioner-accused dashed PW.1, which was witnessed by PWs.3, 5 and 6. PW.4 recorded the statement of PW.1 and sent the same to LW.9-Sub Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police Station. On completion of the investigation, LW.9 filed the charge sheet and the same was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.161 of 2000 on the file of the learned VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. While the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4, the accused got marked Ex.D.1. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the revision petitioner-accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 338 I.P.C. and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner-accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-accused preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference and submitted that the petitioner was taken into custody on the date of dismissal of the appeal, i.e. 06.02.2004, and since then he was in jail till he was granted bail by this Court on 13.02.2004 and, therefore, requests that a lenient view may be taken by this Court. Admittedly, the alleged offence took place on 25.09.1999 and the petitioner was in jail from 06.02.2004 to 13.02.2004 i.e. about 8 days. As the alleged offence took place about 11 years back and the petitioner was in jail for about 8 days, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken by reducing the sentence to that of the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, in C.C.No.161 of 2000 dated 15.02.2001 and as affirmed by the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, in Crl.A.No.141 of 2001 dated 06.02.2004, for the offence punishable under Section 338 I.P.C., is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him. The revision petitioner-accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is 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 Date:07.12.2010 usd