THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.360 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein along with another was tried as accused in C.C.No.214 of 2009 for the offence punishable under sections 457 and 379 of IPC or alternatively under section 411 of IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 457 of IPC but found them guilty of the offence punishable under section 379 of IPC and accordingly sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months each. As against the said judgment dated 12.04.2010, the petitioner – A.2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2010 and the learned District & Sessions Judge, Eluru, by his judgment dated 25.01.2011 while concurring with the said finding given by the learned Magistrate, dismissed the said appeal. Questioning the same this revision is preferred. 2 Brief facts that led to the filing of the present revision are that on the night on 26.04.2009 unknown offenders gained entrance into the houses of P.Ws.3 and 4 and committed theft of gold ornaments and cell phone. In that connection a case in Cr.No.41 of 2009 and 42 of 2009 were registered and investigated into. On 19.05.2009 at 5.00 PM when P.W.6 and his wife were waiting for bus at Gharmajigudem to go to their village, the accused stealthily taken away purse from the bag of the wife of P.W.6 which contains gold chain weighing about 3 sovereigns of gold and when the wife of P.W.6 raised cries, P.Ws.1 and 2 and others chased the accused and caught hold of them and produced them before police. In that connection a case in Cr.No.50 of 2009 was registered and during the course of interrogation the accused confessed to have committed the offence in the above referred crimes. In pursuance of the confessions made by the accused the stolen property was recovered from the possession of P.W.5. After completion of investigation the police filed charge sheet. 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 25.01.2011 and the petitioner was taken into custody immediately and ever since he is in jail. So from the above, the petitioner was in jail for a period of 25 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially also the petitioner was in jail for a period of more than two months and the said fact is evident from the calendar of the trial court. In that view of the matter, as the petitioner was in jail for a period of nearly three months, this court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken in so far as the said sentence imposed on the petitioner is concerned. 6 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru in Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2010 by judgment dated 25.01.2011 is modified and the said sentence is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. Excepting the said modification in all other aspects this revision is dismissed. ________________ 18th February 2011 Kvsn