HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.500 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of the VIII-Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, in Crl.A.No.258 of 2009 dated 28.02.2011 confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.200/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of five days, for the offence punishable under Section 411 of I.P.C., imposed against the petitioner-A2, by the III- Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka, in C.C.No.264 of 2005 dated 08.12.2009. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.02.2005 while P.Ws.1 and 2 were on patrolling duty outside the perimeter wall near Appikonda area, they found the accused in possession of aluminium scrap material belongs to the steel plant. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before P.W.3, who in turn registered the case in Crime No.20 of 2005 against the accused and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C. The accused were tried for the offence punishable under Section 379 or 411 of I.P.C. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 to prove the guilt of the accused. On perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 411 of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced the petitioner-A2 and another accused as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner-A2 against the said conviction and sentence, the learned VIII- Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on the accused by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-A2 preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case to interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below, but, however, he requested this Court to take a lenient view so far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the Courts below have given sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the petitioner-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 28.02.2011 and the petitioner-A2 was taken into custody on the same day itself. So it is clear from the record that the petitioner is 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 petitioner-A2 to that of the period already undergone by him. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of Six months imposed against the revision petitioner-A2 by the Courts below for the offence punishable under Section 411 of I.P.C., is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner-A2 has already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine. The petitioner-A2 is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with the above said modification. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 07-03-2011 Gsn.