HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1474 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, in Crl.A.No.180 of 2000 dated 26.08.2004, whereby the learned Judge, while confirming the conviction imposed against the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 23 (1) of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act for contravention of Section 7 of the said Act, reduced the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of four months for the said offence imposed against the petitioner-accused by the learned V- Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chittoor, in S.T.C.No.65 of 1997 dated 26.07.2000, to two months simple imprisonment. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-accused, who is a trader carrying on his business in purchase and sale of jaggery, which is a notified commodity under clause 4 of Section 4 of the Act, failed to obtain or renew the licence for the years 1993-94 to 1996-97 from the complainant as provided under Sections 7 (1), 12 (1), 17 © and Rule 70 (2) of the Act read with Rule 48 and by-law 20 for purchase and sale of jaggery. The prosecution has examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 to prove the guilt of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, found the petitioner-accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 23 (1) of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act for contravention of Section 7 of the said Act, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. In an appeal preferred by the petitioner-accused, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence of four months simple imprisonment imposed against the petitioner- accused by the trial Court, to two months simple imprisonment, while confirming the sentence of fine. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the 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 petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 23 (1) of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act for contravention of Section 7 of the said Act, 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 criminal appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court on 26.08.2004 and the petitioner-accused was taken into custody on the same day itself and that the petitioner-accused came out of the jail by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 27.08.2004 after admitting this Criminal revision. So it is clear from the record that the petitioner was in jail for a period of two days. 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 simple imprisonment of two months to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioner-accused. In the result, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section under Section 23 (1) of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act for contravention of Section 7 of the said Act, imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.180 of 2000, is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner- accused has already undergone. The petitioner-accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Except the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 03-02-2011 Gsn.