THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.905 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 Petitioner herein was tried as accused by the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate Tenali, in C.C.No.29 of 2000 for the offence punishable under sections 304-A of IPC. During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.16. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 22.07.2002 the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.309 of 2002 and the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Guntur while concurring with the findings given by the trial court dismissed the said appeal by judgment dated 31.05.2004. Questioning the same, this revision is preferred by the second accused. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 02.01.2000 at 3.00 p.m while Thota John William (deceased) was coming on Kolluru to Vellaturu road, the petitioner being the driver of the lorry bearing No.A.P.S.T-396, while coming from Kolluru to Vellaturu, drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and caused his instantaneous death on the road near the bus shelter. In that connection a case in Cr.No.1 of 2000 was registered by Kollur Police station and investigated into and after completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet. 3 When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, he requested this court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is concerned. 4 Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner this court looked into the record. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on 31.05.2004 and it is only after this revision was admitted and bail was granted by this court on 01.06.2004 the petitioner came out of the jail. Thus the petitioner is in jail for a period of three days. Having regard to the fact that the said offence relates to the year 2000 i.e. about 11 years back and inasmuch as the petitioner was in jail for three days this court is of the view that lenient view can be taken in so far as the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the courts below is concerned. 5 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by both the courts below is modified and the said sentence is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. Excepting the said modification in all other aspects this revision is dismissed. ____________ 24.03.2011 Kvsn