THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.594 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein was tried as accused in C.C.No.794 of 2005 for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence both oral and documentary found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. As against the said judgment dated 29.06.2009, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.113 of 2009 and the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Visakhapatnam, by his judgment dated 28.02.2011 while allowing the said appeal partly, modified the said sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year to that of six months. Questioning the same the accused before the trial court preferred this revision. 2 Brief facts that led to the filing of the present revision are that on 11.10.2005 at 7.00 PM when the deceased – Madugula Thatharao and P.W.1 Madugula Chandra Rao were proceeding on their cycles from “Y” junction to Pydithallamma Gudi junction and when they reached near Enugula gate, CWC Godowns in port area, the petitioner being the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 31 X 6479 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cycle of the deceased as a result of which the deceased fell down and received severe head injury and died on the spot. In that connection a case in Cr.No.69 of 2005 was registered by the Station House Officer, Harbour Police Station, Visakhapatnam and investigated into and after completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet. 3 Heard both sides. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, he requested the court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. 5 Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner this court looked into the record. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on 28.02.2011 and the petitioner was taken into custody immediately. In that view of the matter, though the petitioner was committed to jail only yesterday this court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken in so far as the said sentence imposed on the petitioner is concerned having regard to the fact that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him is only for a period of six months and also having regard to the fact that the petitioner was made roaming from one court to another for all these years. 6 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam in Criminal Appeal No.113 of 2009 by judgment dated 28.02.2011 is modified and the said sentence is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. Excepting the said modification in all other aspects this revision is dismissed. _____________ Kvsn 1st March 2011