THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.565 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 Petitioner herein and another were tried as accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Chintalapudi, West Godavari District in C.C.No.557 of 2007 for the offence punishable under sections 379 or alternatively under section 411 of IPC. During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence found the accused guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months each. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 08.12.2009 the petitioner who is A.2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2010 before the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while concurring with the findings given by the trial court, and dismissing the said appeal, however, reduced the said sentence of imprisonment from six months to that of three months by judgment dated 29.12.2010. Questioning the same, this revision is preferred by the second accused. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 16.12.2006 during night time some unknown offenders committed theft of electrical motor (Mono Block) worth of Rs.5,000/- from the house of P.W.1 On the basis of a report given by P.W.1 on 26.12.2006 a case in Cr.No.94 of 2006 of Dharmajigudem Police station was registered under section 379 of IPC by P.W.2 and investigated into. During the course of investigation on 27.12.2006 at about 8 AM the accused were arrested in the presence of mediators and M.O.1 motor was recovered from them under the cover of mediators report and after completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet. 3 When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, he requested this court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is concerned. 4 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 29.12.2010 and from then onwards the petitioner is in jail. Thus from the last two months and ten days the petitioner is in jail. Having regard to the fact that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is only for a period of three months and also in view of the fact that the petitioner had already served a sentence of more than two months by now, this court is of the view that lenient view can be taken in so far as the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the court below is concerned. 5 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2010 by judgment dated 29.12.2010 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. ___________ 10.03.2011 Kvsn