HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1274 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner- accused No.1 against the judgment, dated 02.08.2005, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2002 by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nellore. 2. The petitioner-accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 4 was prosecuted in C.C.No.255 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 8(b)(ii) of the A.P. Prohibition Act. After due trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kota, convicted the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year while acquitting the other accused of the said offence, vide judgment, dated 26.03.2002. 3. As against the said conviction, the petitioner-accused No.1 filed Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2002 on the file of the II Addl. Sessions judge, Nellore, and the learned Sessions Judge, after re-appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the Criminal Appeal while confirming the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the petitioner-accused No.1, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from three years to one year and fine from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, vide judgment, dated 02.08.2005. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred this revision. 4. Heard both sides. 5. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner by not pressing the main prayer confined his arguments to the extent of imposition of sentence and requested the Court to show some indulgence on the petitioner. 6. In view of the said submission and also the fact that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have given concurrent findings, this Court is of the view that the merits and demerits of the prosecution case and the impugned judgment need not be adjudicated. 7. It is represented that the petitioner has a daughter affected with polio and he is a blood pressure and sugar patient and unable to see perfectly. Admittedly, the offence took place in the year 1995 and for all these years the petitioner suffered humiliation. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to show some lenience towards the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the conviction recorded against the petitioner-accused No.1 by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 8(b)(ii) of the A.P. Prohibition Act as confirmed by the appellate Court is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment is modified to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner. Besides the fine of Rs.5,000/-, the petitioner is directed to pay additional fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) before the trial Court within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six (6) months. 9. In all other respects, the impugned judgment shall stand confirmed. 10. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 27th January, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1274 OF 2005 DATE: 27.01.2011 Between : Shaik Jabbar Saheb … Petitioner/ Accused No.1 and State of A.P. ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1274 of 2005 (Disposed of) 27th January, 2011 cbs