THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1077 of 2004 O R D E R: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2002, dated 29.06.2004 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereunder the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment dated 07.01.2002 passed in C.C.No.859 of 2000 by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, whereunder the petitioner herein- accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. The brief facts of the case are that on 7.3.2000 the accused telephoned to PW.1, D.Sivaprasad Reddy falsely stating that his office is at first floor of Chenoy Trade Centre, Secunderabad and he wants a computer on rent to be supplied at that address. Believing the accused PW.1 took a computer with accessories to deliver it to the accused. The accused took delivery of the computer went into the complex with a pretext of keeping it in his office at first floor, because PW.1 being a lame person, the accused asked him to remain at the down stairs promising to come back to him and pay him the amount as per the rental agreement. But after waiting, PW.1 did not find the accused coming back to him. Then, PW.1 made enquiries at the said complex and came to know that there is no person with the name of Ramakrishna having any office at the said complex. On 8.3.2000 PW.1 lodged a complaint before PW.3 S.I. of Police, Mahankali Police Station who registered the same and investigated into. During the course of investigation, PW.3 arrested the accused, recovered the stolen computer in his possession and remanded to judicial custody. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, confined his argument only in connection with the sentence imposed by the Courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence took place in the year 2000 and ever since the date of offence, the petitioner is under humiliation during the pendency of the appeal. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is the only bread- winner in his family and he has to look after his children and, hence, he prayed to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence. Considering the above facts and circumstances, date of offence, and property involved in the crime, some leniency can be shown to the accused. Accordingly, the conviction imposed by the Courts below is confirmed, however, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner/accused is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards fine apart from the fine amount imposed by the Courts below, within a period of four weeks from the date of a copy of this order is made ready. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 6th July, 2010. PNV