THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.924 of 2004 DATED: 13-07-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioners, questioning the judgment, dated 22-04-2004, passed in Crl.A.No.22 of 2001, confirming the judgment, dated 09-02-2001, in C.C.No.392 of 2000 passed by the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. The brief facts are that the Sub-Inspector of police, Law & Order, S.R.Pet police station, Vijayawada filed a charge sheet against the petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC alleging that the petitioners-A1 and A2 were sanctioned loan of Rs.1,65,300/- under P.M.R.Y.scheme for purchase of Hindustan Diesel Trekkar on 26-05-1994 by the Canara Bank, Governorpet Branch, Vijayawada of which Challa Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy and Simakurthy Karunya Murthy-L.Ws.1 and 2 were concerned with a repayment condition of Rs.3006/- per month from January, 1995. They purchased Hindustan Diesel Trekkar, bearing No.AP 37 U 4596 with the loan obtained from the bank and they have not complied with the terms and conditions of the loan and did not pay the monthly instalments. Further the petitioners became due for Rs.2,14,364-50 plus interest thereon from 01-01-1998 and they failed to produce the vehicle for inspection of the bank authorities. Thus the petitioners failed to repay the loan amount to the bank and cheated the bank to a tune of Rs.2,14,364-50. Therefore, P.W.1 presented a report to the police and the police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.338 of 1999 on 20-03-2000 and the accused were arrested and sent for remand and after completion of the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of police laid the charge sheet. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P20 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondent. 4. On an analysis of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners are guilty of the offence under Section 420 IPC and accordingly sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay fine of Rs.3000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months each. The same was questioned by way of filing Crl.A.No.22 of 2001 before the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and the learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment, dated 22-04-2004, while dismissing the said appeal confirmed the said sentence and imprisonment imposed by the trial Court. The same is questioned in this revision. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the judgments of the Courts below, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners have committed the said offence as alleged by the prosecution and there is nothing to discredit the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, I see no merits in this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this juncture, submitted that the alleged offence took place in the year 1994 and the petitioners have undergone substantive sentence. May be it is a fact that they have undergone substantive sentence, but that cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence to that of the period already undergone. In fact, from the record, it appears that the petitioners were arrested on 21-03-2000 and released on bail on 22-03-2000. Further, when the appeal was dismissed on 22-04- 2004, they were taken into custody and later this Court while admitting this revision granted bail to the petitioners on 16-06-2004. 8. From the above, it is clear that the petitioners have undergone a sentence of two months only. As the judgments of the Courts below are convincing and the alleged offence is serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to reduce the said sentence to that of the period already undergone. However, having regard to the fact that it is an incident of the year 1994, the sentence of two years is reduced to one year. The period of two months etc., i.e. when he was in jail shall be given set off. 9. With the above modification, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 13th July, 2010. Tsy