HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No. 947 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, in Crl.A.No.55 of 2010, dated 17.03.2011, whereby the learned Judge while confirming the conviction and sentence of fine amount of Rs.1,000/- imposed against the petitioner-A1 for the offence punishable under Section 285 of I.P.C., reduced the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year imposed against the petioner-A1, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet, in C.C.No.610 of 2007 dated 12.03.2010, to two months simple imprisonment, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed for the said offence. The brief facts of the case are that Accused No.1 is the owner of two Ashok Leyland Tankers bearing Nos.A.P.07.X.666 and A.P.37.U.666 and A-2 and A-3 were working as drivers of the said Tankers and that they were transporting and selling diesel and petrol mixing with kerosene to public without possessing any valid licence. It is stated that on 16.05.2006 the Sub Inspector of Police, Arvapally visited the house of A-1 and found the said Two Tankers, one is opened drum kept near kerosene tanker, shifting kerosene into drum from tanker with plastic pipe and also found one generator and one drum containing petrol and that he seized diesel tanker containing 5000 litres of diesel, kerosene tanker containing about 200 litres of kerosene and an iron drum containing about 80 litres of petrol, one H.P. Motor, one Robin company generator, one open half iron drum containing about 10 litres of kerosene mixed with diesel under cover of panchanama. After completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police, Suryapet, filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.35 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 285 I.P.C. and Sections 7 of Essential Commodities Act and Section 3 (1) of A.P. Petroleum Product Licensing Regulation of Supply Order, 1980. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 and P6 and M.Os.1 to 6 to prove the guilt of the accused. On perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, while acquitting A-2 and A- 3 for the offences with which they were charged, found the petitioner-A1 guilty of the offences punishable under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act and also Section 285 of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. However, the trial Court acquitted the petitioner-A1 for the offences punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. and Section 3 of A.P. Petroleum Products Licensing Regulation of Supply Order, 1980. In an appeal preferred by the accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, while confirming the conviction and sentence of fine amount of Rs.1,000/- imposed against the petitioner-A1 for the offence punishable under Section 285 of I.P.C., reduced the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year imposed against the petioner-A1, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, to two months simple imprisonment, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed for the said offence. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-A1 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 appellate Court, but, however, he requested this Court to take a lenient view in 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 appellate Court has given sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the revision petitioner-A1. 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 revision petitioner-A1 was taken into judicial custody on 17.03.2011 and that he had undergone sentence of imprisonment 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-A1 to that of the period already undergone by him. In the result, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of two months, imposed against the revision petitioner-A1 for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.55 of 2010 dated 17.03.2011, is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against him for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act and also under Section 285 of I.P.C. The revision petitioner- A1 is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 21-03-2011 Gsn.