THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1080 of 2004 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein was tried as accused in C.C.No.971 of 2000 for the offence punishable under section 379 of IPC by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1 The learned Magistrate having assessed the said evidence, found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/, in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. As against the said judgment dated 07.01.2002, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2002 and the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by his judgment dated 29.06.2004 while concurring with the said finding given by the learned Magistrate, dismissed the said appeal. Questioning the same the accused before the trial court preferred this revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 5.3.2000 prior to 6.00 p.m. the petitioner contacted P.W.1 over phone mentioning his name as Ramakrishna having office at first floor of Parklane Commercial Complex, Parklane, Secunderabad and wanted computer on rent for installing the same at his office. Believing the petitioner to be a genuine party, P.W.1 took a computer i.e. HCC colour Monitor CPU, key board and mouse to Parklane Commercial Complex on the same day at 6.00 p.m. The petitioner met P.W.1, took the computer and went into the complex with pretext of keeping the computer at his office in first floor and asked P.W.1 to wait there. However, the petitioner did not turn up. Then P.W.1 made enquiries at the complex and came to know that no person byname Ramakrishna was there. Basing on the complaint of P.W.1, P.W.3 the S.I of Police, Mahankali P.S. registered a case and investigated into and during the course of investigation the petitioner was arrested and the stolen property was recovered. 3 Heard both sides. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, he requested the court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. 5 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 29.06.2004 and the petitioner was taken into custody immediately. It is only after the revision was admitted and bail was granted by this court on 02.07.2004, the petitioner came out from the jail. So the petitioner was in jail for a period of 3 days. In that view of the matter, since the offence for which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced relates to the year 2000, further, as the petitioner was in jail for a period of three days, and since the sentence imposed against the petitioner by the courts below is only six months, this court takes a lenient view and reducing the said sentence of simple imprisonment of six months, as imposed by the courts blow, to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. 6 Excepting the above modification, this revision in all other aspects is dismissed. -------------- 03.02.2011 Kvsn