HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.744 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court, Visakhapatnam, in Crl.A.No.21 of 2001, dated 07.05.2003 confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act, imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yelamanchili, in C..C.No.132 of 2001 dated 24.01.2002. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 to prove the guilt of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced her as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner against the said conviction and sentence, the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-accused preferred this criminal revision. This Court, on 12.06.2003, while suspending the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioner, enlarged her on bail. Heard both sides. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the judgments delivered by both the Courts below, this Court of the view that the Courts below have rightly applied its mind and came to the conclusion that the revision petitioner-accused was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also not shown me anything, which would discredit the evidence. Hence the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court against the revision petitioner-accused is upheld. I see no merit in the revision. As regards the sentence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner had undergone substantive sentence of imprisonment during the course of trial and also after the appellate Court pronounced the judgment and hence the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by her. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct. The appeal was dismissed on 07.05.2003 and immediately the petitioner was taken into custody. Thereafter, in this revision, the petitioner was granted bail by this Court on 12.06.2003. Since the occurrence took place as early as in the year 2000 and the revision petitioner had already undergone the sentence of about thirty five days, this Court is of the view that it is suffice to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of one year, as was imposed by the Courts below, to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioner, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against her. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other crime. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 15.07.2010 Gsn.