THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.748 OF 2010 1 The petitioner herein was tried as first accused by the learned II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry in S.C.No.337 of 2009 for the offence punishable under section 395 of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.12 and M.Os.1 to 9. The trial court, after full fledged trial, found the petitioner guilty of the offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.250/-. In default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The said judgment dated 09.01.2009 was questioned by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2009 and the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry by his judgment dated 24.08.2009 dismissed the said appeal. Hence the petitioner approached this court and filed the present revision. 2 Brief facts are that on the intervening night of 26/27.01.2006 five unknown offenders gained entry into the house of P.Ws.1 & 2, threatened both of them by showing sticks, beat both of them, confined them and gagged clothes in their mouths and thereafter committed robbery of valuables like gold and silver articles, cash and other articles inclusive of M.Os.1 to 9. In that connection a case in Cr.No.34 X 33 of 2006 was registered for the offence punishable under section 395 of IPC. After completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet. 3 Heard. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but requested this court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence imposed on the petitioners is concerned. He further submitted that the petitioner was produced on P.T. warrant on 04.03.2006 and from then he is in jail. In that view of the matter, this court directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to get instructions. On instructions the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has been in jail from 04.03.2006. 5 From the above it is clear that the petitioner had already undergone a total sentence of more than four years and seven months whereas the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is only seven years. In that view of the matter, this court is of the view that a lenient view may be taken in so far as the said sentence is concerned. 6 In the result, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under section 395 of I.P.C imposed against the petitioner herein viz., Annareddy Madu by both the courts below is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Except the above modification in all other aspects the revision is dismissed. _____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 25th October 2010 Registry is directed to dispatch the order Immediately. B/o Kvsn