THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1116 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated 03.03.2011, made by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Srikakulam in Crl.A.No.82 of 2010 modifying the judgment dated 30.7.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amadalavalasa, in C.C.No.184 of 2008. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: On 26.9.2008 at about 7.30 p.m., P.Ws.1 to 3 and two others boarded auto bearing No.AP 30-U-7325 at Amadalavalasa to go to Burja and the accused was the driver of the said vehicle and he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at 10.30 p.m., when it reached Kollivalasa junction, the accused dashed against stationed lorry bearing No.O.R.18/2169, as a result of which, P.Ws.1 to 3 and two others sustained injuries and then, they were shifted to Area Hospital, Palakonda. On the basis of the statement of P.W.1, a case in Crime No.49 of 2008 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 338 and 337 IPC. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.184 of 2008. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused guilty for the offence under Section 337 IPC and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The said judgment was questioned by way of filing an appeal in Crl.A.No.82 of 2010 before the II Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Srikakulam. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part confirming the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 337 IPC and reducing the sentence of simple imprisonment from six months to three months. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioner filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but he requested to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been in jail for a period of nearly 20 days. Heard and perused the material available on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused, I feel that the judgment of the appellate Court does not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the accused is wandering around the Courts since 2008 and in view of the fact that the petitioner has been in jail for a period of nearly 20 days, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a lenient view can be taken insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the lower appellate Court for the offence under Section 337 IPC against the petitioner-accused is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under section 337 IPC imposed against the petitioner herein viz., M. Sanyasirao by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Srikakulam in Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2010, by judgment dated 3.3.2011, is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner has already undergone. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 21st March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1116 of 2011 21.3.2011