HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.967 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioners- accused against the judgment, dated 21.06.2005, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2004 by the VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur. 2. The petitioner-accused was tried in C.C.No.1183 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act. After due trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur, convicted the petitioner under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months, vide judgment, dated 03.03.2004. 3. As against the said conviction, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2004 on the file of the VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur and the learned Sessions Judge, having gone through both the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal while confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate, vide judgment, dated 21.06.2005. 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 petitioners. 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 merits of the prosecution case and impugned judgment need not be adjudicated. 7. It is represented that the petitioner is the sole bread winner of his family and has to look after the affairs of his family members. The offence is a compoundable offence. Admittedly, the offence took place in the year 1997 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 4 by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise 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. The fine amount imposed for the said offence by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court is not interfered with. 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 23rd December, 2010 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.967 OF 2005 DATE: 23.12.2010 Between : Gunji Venkateswarlu … Petitioner/ Accused and State of A.P. ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.967 of 2005 (Disposed of) 23rd December, 2010 cbs