THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.922 of 2004 Dated:17.06.2011 Between: Chapparapur Malakondaiah ……Appellant And: State of A.P., rep. By its PP., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …..Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.922 of 2004 ORDER: This revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against judgment dated 06.04.2004 delivered by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Ongole in Crl.A.No.141 of 2001, modifying conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kanigiri in C.C.No.62 of 1999 dated 06.07.2001, whereby the petitioner/ accused herein was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of it to suffer simple imprisonment for six months with a direction to set off his remand period under Section 428 Cr.PC. The brief facts of the case are as follows: A.1 is the husband of P.W.1. viz., Chopporapu Venkata Subbamma and A.2 is the second wife of A.1. The marriage of A.1 with P.W.1 took place about 20 years back at V. Bayalu village and they were blessed with two children. Both A.1 and P.W.1 lived at V. Bayalu village for a period of one year after their marriage. From the beginning A.1 used to harass P.W.1 to bring money by selling her house. As P.W.1 was refusing the demand of A.1, he used to resort to beat P.W.1 severely. On one occasion A.1 chased P.W.1 with knife as she failed to sell away the house as demanded by him itself. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2. None examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused. In spite of posting the matter under the caption of ‘for orders’, no representation has been made on behalf of the appellant. Heard learned Public Prosecutor. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to allow the petition or to modify the sentence as prayed for? I have perused the record. On the perusal of the record, it is clear that both the courts below examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions hence there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings given by both the courts below. Further it is a case of 2004 and ever since the petitioner has been wandering around the courts below and this court and in that connection he might have lost his valuable time and money and also suffered to a great extent particularly after imposing the conviction and sentence. Hence, it is quite reasonable to reduce the sentence to six (6) months from one (1) year simple imprisonment while keeping the fine clause intact. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is disposed of with the above observation. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J. 17th June, 2011 GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.922 of 2004 Date:17.06.2011 Gk.