THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 855 of 2005 ORDER: This criminal revision is preferred questioning the judgment dated 10.6.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2005 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Siddipet in confirming the judgment dated 23.2.2005 in C.C. No. 336 of 2002 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet convicting the petitioner for an offence under Section 406 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-. The facts in brief, which are necessary for disposal of the revision are that the petitioner herein is accused in Crime No. 38 of 2002 registered under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code alleging that on 1.6.2002 the rice released under ‘Food for Work’ programme for Dommata village was illegally shifted by the accused in lorry bearing No. AAB 6001 for sale in open market. After conducting regular trial and on consideration of the evidence and material available on record, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet, by order dated 23.2.2005 convicted the accused under Section 248 (2) of Criminal procedure Code for the offence punishable under section 406 Indian penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine of Rs.300/-, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Questioning the said judgment, the accused/petitioner preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2005 and the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Siddipet on re-appreciation of the matter by its judgment dated 10.6.2005 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Hence, the present criminal revision. Learned counsel for petitioner after arguing the matter for some time, prayed this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the alleged incident pertains to 2002 and the main accused involved in the matter expired. It is also submitted that the petitioner is the only bread winner for the family. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of case, this Court is of the view that there is no reason warranting interference with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. However, taking into consideration the fact that the matter is pending since 2002, it is felt appropriate that a lenient view can be taken in the matter. Hence, while confirming the conviction, the sentence is modified and reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards fine, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On failure to pay such an amount, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The fine amount now imposed is in addition to the fine imposed by the trial Court. Subject to above modification, the Criminal Revision case is disposed of. _____________ RAJA ELANGO,J DATE:18.1.2010 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.855 OF 2005 Date: 18.1.2011