THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.645 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 Petitioner herein was tried as accused by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate VIjayawada in C.C.No.237 of 2008 for the offence punishable under sections 379 or alternatively under section 411 of IPC. During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 09.02.2009 the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2009 before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. The learned Sessions Judge, while concurring with the findings given by the trial court, dismissed the said appeal by judgment dated 28.02.2011. Questioning the same, this revision is preferred by the second accused. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 05.03.2003 some unknown offenders committed theft of red colour Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 16 K 2865 belonging to P.W.1 when he parked the same near S.N.Puram Railway station and he gave complaint upon which a case in Cr.No.147 of 2003 was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation the petitioner was arrested on 09.02.2004 at about 4.30 p.m. and in pursuance of his confession the said motorcycle was seized from him. But on verification it came to light that the petitioner altered the registration number. After completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet. 3 When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, he requested this court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner 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 28.02.2011 and from then onwards the petitioner is in jail. Thus from the last 20 days the petitioner is in jail. Having regard to the fact that the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is only for a period of three months and as the petitioner has already served a sentence of twenty days by now, this court is of the view that lenient view can be taken in so far as the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the court below is concerned. 5 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge Vijayawada in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2009 by judgment dated 28.02.2011 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. _____________ SRI T.G.K, J 21st March 2011 Kvsn