HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.20 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, in Crl.A.No.5 of 2001 dated 28.11.2003 confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for one year each for the offence punishable under Section 8 (b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act, imposed against the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa, in C.C.No.101 of 2000 dated 19.12.2000. It is the case of the prosecution that on 31.12.1996 at about 4 A.M P.W.1 along with his staff were on route watch at a distance of 2 K.Ms away from Kothavalasa railway station, they found the accused carrying two gunny bags containing 37 bottles of 750 M.L (IML) each and 61 bottles of 375 ML. (IML) each respectively on a Scooter bearing No.A.P.31-D9207. P.W.1 apprehended the accused and seized the contraband. The accused were tried for the offence punishable under Section 8 (b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and M.Os.1 to 9 to prove the guilt of the accused. On perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, while acquitting A-3, found the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8 (b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 against the said conviction and sentence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that this is not a fit case to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, but, however, he requested this Court to take a lenient view in the matter since the petitioners had undergone imprisonment for a period of forty days. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have given sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the petitioners-A1 and A2. 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 28.11.2003 and the petitioners-A1 and A2 were taken into custody on the same day itself and that the petitioners-A1 and A2 came out of the jail by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 06.01.2004 after admitting this revision. So it is clear from the record that the petitioners were in jail for a period of about 40 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 rigorous imprisonment of six months to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioners-A1 and A2. In the result, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of Six months each for the offence punishable under section 8 (b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act imposed against the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa, in C.C.No.101 of 2000, as confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram in Crl.A.No..5 of 2001, is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioners-A1 and A2 have already undergone. The petitioners-A1 and A2 are 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) 09-11-2010 Gsn.