THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1485 of 2004 13-07-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner-accused, questioning the judgment, dated 17-08-2004, passed in Crl.A.No.240 of 2001 by the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 07-03-1998 evening while Uppuluri Gopi-P.W.1 and Uppuluri Rajyalakshmi-P.W.2 were waiting for a bus to go to Kurichedu, after visiting the celebrations of Narasimha Swamy tirunallu, four unknown offenders came there and two offenders caught hold of the hands of P.W.2 and one offender snatched away the Gold Nanutadu weighing about 2 sovereigns, worth Rs.7000/- and when P.W.1 tried to prevent them, they assaulted him with stones, inflicted injuries on his upper lip and right ear and in the meanwhile the Excise Police, Darsi came there and chased the offenders and the offenders hurled stones against him as a result of which he sustained injury on his right eye. On the statement given by the Excise police, Darsi, police registered a case in Cr.No.7 of 1998 under Section 324 IPC and after completion of investigation laid charge sheet. Since non bailable warrant was pending against the petitioner herein the case against him was separated from the original C.C.No.39 of 1998 and numbered as C.C.No.22 of 2000. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked besides M.O.1. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused. 4. On an analysis of the entire evidence on record, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner-A1 is guilty of the offence under Section 379 IPC and accordingly vide judgment, dated 26-11-2001, convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-A1 preferred Crl.A.No.240 of 2001 before the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole and the learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment, dated 17-08-2004, while confirming the said sentence reduced the period of rigorous imprisonment from three years to 1½ years and the same is questioned in this revision. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record. 6. A perusal of the record goes to show that the petitioner was arrested on 09-10-2000 and remanded to judicial custody and later he was released on bail by virtue of the order of suspension granted by the trial Court on 21-11-2000. Further, when the appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on 17-08-2004 he was taken into custody and later he was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on 31-08- 2004. 7. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner was in jail for a period of more than two months. Having regard to the fact that the alleged offence took place on 07-03-1998 and the value of the theft property is Rs.7000/- and he was in jail for a period of more than two months, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, while concurring with the finding of the Courts below with regard to the conviction, the said sentence of 1½ years imposed by the lower appellate Court is reduced to that of the period already undergone. 8. With the above modification, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 13th July, 2010. Tsy