HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.2073 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, in Crl.A.No.84 of 2004 dated 10.12.2004, whereby the learned Judge, while setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the 2nd petitioner-A2 for the offence punishable under Section 109 of I.P.C., reduced the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year, and six months for the offences punishable under Sections 408 and 420 of I.P.C. respectively imposed against the 1st petitioner- A1, to six months and three months respectively and further reduced the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. imposed against the 2nd petitioner-A2, by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem, in C.C.No.61 of 2000 dated 23.04.2004, to six months simple imprisonment. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.2 is running a shop under the name and style of Sri Laxmi Srinivas Fertilizers and Pesticides, Kaikaram. Accused No.1 was working as a clerk under P.W.2 and he used to collect amounts from the customers and pay the same to P.W.2. On 25.08.1999 P.W.2 handed over bill book No.1 and instructed A-1 to collect the amounts due from the customers and accordingly A-1 collected an amount of Rs.62,550/- from the customers, but he did not turn up to the shop of P.W.2. It is stated that A-1 gave an amount of Rs.42,000/- to accused No.2 and the remaining amount was spent for his vices. Thereafter, P.W.2 lodged a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Chebrole, who in turn registered a case in Crime No.100 of 1999 against the accused and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused. The accused were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420 read with Section 109 of I.P.C. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused Ex.D1 was marked. On perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found A1 and A2 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420 read with Section 109 of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced them. A-1 was convicted of the offence punishable under section 408 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. A-1 was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. A-2 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. A-2 was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 109 of I.P.C. The substantive sentences imposed against the accused were ordered to run concurrently. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 against the said conviction and sentence, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against the accused by the trial Court, reduced the quantum of sentence of imprisonment as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that this is not a fit case to interfere with the findings recorded by the appellate Court, but, however, he requested this Court to take a lenient view in the matter since the petitioners had undergone imprisonment for a period of ten days. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the appellate Court has given sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the petitioners-A1 and A2. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the quantum of sentence, it is clear from the record that the criminal appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court on 10.12.2004 and the petitioners-A1 and A2 were taken into custody on the same day itself and that the petitioners-A1 and A2 came out of the jail by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 17.12.2004 after admitting this revision. So it is clear from the record that the petitioners were in jail for a period of about one week. In the aforesaid circumstances and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken by reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 to that of the period already undergone by them. In the result, the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of Six months each imposed against the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 by the appellate Court for the offences with which they were charged, in Crl.A.No..84 of 2004, is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioners-A1 and A2 have already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine. The petitioners-A1 and A2 are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 28-01-2011 Gsn.