THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.891 of 2004 DATED: 13-07-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner-accused, questioning the judgment of conviction, dated 06-05-2004, passed in Crl.A.No.389 of 2001, confirming the judgment, dated 16-07-2001, in C.C.No.265 of 2000 passed by the learned IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. 2. The brief facts are that Jampani Chalamaiah- P.W.1 purchased the tractor bearing No.AEC.1524 and Trally bearing No.AAN.1246 and on 25-04-2000 at about 8.00 a.m. one Lella Srirama Murthy-P.W.3 and another requested P.W.1 to supply the tractor and trally for taking procession of Poleramma Goddess from Bapatla to Tenali and as per the instructions of P.W.1, P.W.2, accompanied by P.W.3 and another, took the tractor and trally by keeping the Poleramma Goddess with procession in the trally to Tenali. After completion of procession, while returning to Bapatla, they stopped their tractor along with the trally at Narakoduru center and went to coffee hotel situate on Guntur side. After half an hour they returned to Narakoduru center where the tractor was kept and noticed that the tractor was stolen away by somebody. P.W.2 informed the same to P.W.1 and then P.W.1 gave a report on 26-04-2000 to Sk.Abdul Azeez-P.W.5, who registered a case in Cr.No.54 of 2000 under Section 379 IPC. On information, the Circle Inspector of Police-P.W.6 along with V.Narasimsharao-P.W.4, L.W.6, P.W.5 and staff reached Cherbrolu bus stop center on 03-05-2000 and arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.4 and L.W.6 and recorded the confessional statement of the accused under the cover of mediatornama and after completion of investigation, P.W.6 filed the charge sheet. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked besides M.O.1. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondent. 4. On an analysis of the entire evidence on record, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not guilty of the said offence punishable under Section 379 IPC, however found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months vide his judgment, dated 16-07-2001. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.389 of 2001 before the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur and the learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment, dated 06-05-2004, dismissed the said appeal. Hence, the present revision by the petitioner herein. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the Courts below are justified in recording the conviction of the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC and it is not a case for interference. In fact, the petitioner was in jail during the course of trial and later he was taken into custody immediately after the judgment was pronounced in the appeal and later he was enlarged on bail by this Court on 25-05-2004. Thus he was in jail for a period of more than three months. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of more than three months, this Court is of the view that the sentence recorded by the trial Court can be reduced to that of the period already undergone. 7. Except the said modification, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 13th July, 2010. Tsy