THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.495 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein was tried as accused in C.C.No.128 of 2009 for the offences punishable under sections 338 and 337 of IPC and under sections 134 (a) & (b) of Motor Vehicles Act by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sompeta. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence both oral and documentary found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC, further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under section 337 of IPC, further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days for the offence punishable under section 134 (a) & (b) of M.V. Act. As against the said judgment dated 18.02.2010, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2010 and the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Srikakulam, by his judgment dated 23.02.2011 while allowing the said appeal in part and setting aside the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 337 of IPC in view of his conviction for the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC, however confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 338 of IPC and under sections 134 (a) & (b) of M.V. Act. Questioning the same the petitioner preferred this revision. 2 Brief facts that led to the filing of the present revision are that on 16.06.2008 at 7.00 a.m the petitioner being the driver of an auto bearing No.A.P. 30 T / 7301, while proceeding from Kanchili bus stand towards Ampuram junction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against P.Ws.1 to 3 and caused both grievous and simple injuries to them. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, he requested the court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment 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 23.02.2011 and the petitioner was taken into custody immediately and since then he is in jail. So the petitioner was in jail for a period of nearly two weeks. In that view of the matter, since the petitioner has already served a sentence of nearly two weeks, and since the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is only for three months, this court takes a lenient view. 5 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the courts below 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. The petitioner shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other crime. _____________ 7th March 2011 Kvsn