THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.161 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein along with six others was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, (Special Mobile) Mahabubnagar in C.C.No.85 of 1996 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC on the complaint given by P.W.1 in the said case alleging that the petitioner and others harassed his daughter for more dowry and subjected her to cruelty. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. The trial court having analysed the said evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner, who is the husband of the de facto complainant, alone is guilty of the said offence and accordingly while acquitting the other accused of the said charge, convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC. Questioning the said judgment the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.124 of 1998 and the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Mahabubnagar by his judgment dated 29.01.2004 while dismissing the said appeal, reduced the said sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred this revision. 2 Heard. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but however, requested the court to take a lenient view in so far as the said sentence is concerned. He further submitted that the petitioner was in jail for a total period of 25 days i.e. during the initial remand period and after the appeal was dismissed. 4 In the light of the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is not objected to by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this court takes a lenient view in so far as the sentence imposed against the petitioner is concerned. 5 Accordingly, the said sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year imposed on the petitioner by the courts below is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. Excepting the above modification, in all other aspects this revision is dismissed. -------------- 10.11.2010 Kvsn