THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1000 of 2005 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner-appellant (A-1) against the judgment, dated 27.06.2005 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.135 of 2002 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), West Godavari District, Narsapur, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence pssed in C.C.No.61 of 1997 by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur, whereby and where under the petitioner was convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, he has to undergo SI for a period of six months. He is further convicted under second original charge and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo SI for six months for the offence under Section 420 IPC. He is also sentenced to RI for two years under first additional charge under Section 419 of IPC. He is also sentenced to RI for three years and fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer SI for six months for the offence under second additional charge under Section 468 IPC, he further sentenced to RI for two years under third additional charge under Section 419 IPC, further he is sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs.1000/- in default SI for six months for the offence under Section 468 IPC; and he is further sentenced to undergo RI for two years for the offence under Section 379 IPC and the trial Judge directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Heard both sides. 3. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner by not pressing the main prayer confined his arguments only to the extent of imposition of sentence and requested the Court to show some indulgence on the petitioner. 4. In view of the said submission, this Court is of the view that merits of the Prosecution case and impugned judgment need not be adjudicated. 5. This is a case where both the courts below gave concurrent findings and convicted the petitioner. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction. The petitioner has already suffered humiliation and he is also removed from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the only person to look after his family. After lapse of eighteen years, this Court is of he view that there is no necessity to send the petitioner to prison. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to show some lenience against the petitioner in imposition of sentence. 6. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and as confirmed by the Appellate Court is hereby confirmed. In any event, taking into consideration the fact that the matter is pending from the year 1997, the sentence of imprisonment is hereby reduced to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner in prison. Fine amount already imposed by the trial Court is not interfered with. 7. With the above modifications, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _______________ RAJA ELANGO, J. 27th January 2011, Rns.