THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1152 OF 2001 ORDER: 1 The second respondent herein was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Huzurnagar in Cr.No.190 of 1998 for the offences punishable under sections 363 and 506 of IPC. The trial court having found the respondent guilty of the said offences, however, sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under section 363 of IPC and further sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC, in default, of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for both the offences, by his judgment dated 30.07.2001. As the State has not chosen to file any appeal for enhancement of the said offence, the de facto complainant who was examined as P.W.1 filed the present revision. 2 Brief facts are that on receipt of a complaint from P.W.1 that her daughter Vyshnavi aged about 9 years was missing a case in Cr.No.131 of 1996 on the file of Kodad P.S. On 21.09.1996 P.W.5 i.e. father of the victim came to the police station and informed that he received a telephonic message from the accused with respect to the kidnapping of his daughter and also stated that the accused / respondent demanded Rs.2,00,000/- for release of his daughter. During the course of investigation the accused was arrested and the missing girl was found at Kothuru Police station. After completion of the investigation the police filed charge sheet. The learned Magistrate, after full fledged trial, found the respondent guilty of the said offences punishable under Sections 363 and 506 of IPC and sentenced him as stated supra. 3 Heard. 4 No doubt, the maximum sentence of imprisonment that can be imposed for the offence punishable under section 363 is seven years and fine and for 506 of IPC is two years or with fine or with both. But it does not mean that the accused shall be imposed the maximum sentence. It is always the discretion of the court, which tries the accused to impose the sentence basing on the circumstances and gravity of the offence. Here is the case where the learned Magistrate though found the accused guilty of the said offences, but taking the circumstances of the case into consideration, sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under section 363 of IPC with a fine of Rs.500/-. The said discretion, in my considered view, cannot be arbitrary. Further, the jurisdiction of this court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is very limited. The said exercise can be invoked only when this court finds any material irregularity in the order passed by the courts below. 5 Hence I see no merits in this revision and accordingly the same is dismissed. -------------- 08.07.2010 Kvsn