THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1976 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein was tried as accused in C.C.No.160 of 1995 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 471 IPC. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P-1 and P-6 were marked. On behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the said offences and by his judgment, dated 12.06.2000, sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The same was questioned by the petitioner herein by filing Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam, who by his judgment, dated 24.11.2004, while concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the accused approached this Court and filed the present Criminal Revision Case. The brief facts of the case are that the accused is a retired Mandal Revenue Officer. P.W-1 is a resident of Vomaravalli village and is an unemployee; that on 25.02.1994, PW-1 appeared for an interview at Kodiramamurthy Stadium, Srikakulam, for the post of Cook in Social Welfare Residential Schools in Srikakulam District; that he approached the accused seeking his help in getting the employment and taking advantage of P.W-1’s innocence, the accused fraudulently collected Rs.5,000/- from him in the month of April, 1994 by making false promise and belief to P.W-1 on the pretext that he would arrange for his appointment; that P.W-1 paid the amount of Rs.5,000/- in the office of the District Collector, Srikakulam during the first week of April, 1994 in the presence of P.W-2; that in the month of July, 1994, the accused gave a false appointment order to P.W-1 for the said post as if it were issued by the District Collector and the accused personally took P.W-1 to P.W-3 to provide job, but P.W-3 refused on the pretext that no vacancies are available and that in the month of August, 1994, the accused gave false notice of Collector’s office to P.W- 1 and made him believe that he will be provided an employment. Later, the accused also gave another false appointment order, dated 12.09.1994. In this connection, on a report given by P.W-1 to the Superintendent of Police, the same was registered as a crime against the petitioner herein and during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the said appointment order was not genuine. Hence, the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 471 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioner is now aged about 75 years and he was in jai for quite some time. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the record. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that the appeal was dismissed on 24.11.2004 and immediately, the petitioner was taken into custody and he was released after grant of bail by this Court by an order, dated 30.11.2004. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner-accused suffered imprisonment for about a week. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners-accused by both the Courts below is reduced to that of the period already undergone by them, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 27th January 2011 DR