IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C. No.1950 of 2010 Date:01.10.2010 Between: Vadde Peetla Venkatesu .....Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep. by its PP., High Court of A.P. ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C. No.1950 of 2010 ORDER: 1. On a report given by the mother of the victim i.e., P.W.1, a case in Crime No.44 of 2001 was registered by Kadiri Police Station against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 341 and 376 IPC. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the competent criminal court and after committal the same was numbered as Sessions Case No.884 of 2002 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kadiri. 2. During the course of trial, the victim was examined as P.W.1 and five more witnesses were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-9 were also marked on behalf of the prosecution. No documents are marked for the defense side. Having heard both sides and gone through the said oral and documentary evidence, the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kadiri while holding that the prosecution though could not prove the guilt of the petitioner herein for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 341 IPC and acquitting him of the said charges, however, found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 366A and accordingly, by his judgment dated 08.03.2004, sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months. 3. The said judgment was challenged by the petitioner by filing Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2004 and the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur, by judgment dated 24.10.2005 while confirming the judgment of the trial court, dismissed the said appeal. The same is questioned in this revision. 4. It may not be necessary for this Court to narrate the facts for the reason that the petitioner had already suffered a substantive sentence. From the trial court's order, it is clear that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 09.04.2001 and was released on bail on 30.04.2001. From the above, it is clear that he was in jail for a period of 22 days. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after the judgment was pronounced by the Sessions Court on 08.03.2004, the petitioner is in jail. If the said contention is accepted, the petitioner is in jail for the last six and half years, even otherwise, the judgment was pronounced by the lower appellate court on 24.10.2005 and if the said date is taken into consideration, the petitioner is in jail for the last about five years. As the sentence imposed by the court below is only seven years and the petitioner had undergone a substantive sentence of more than five years, this Court is of the view that this revision petition can be disposed of by reducing the said sentence to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner. Except the said modification, in all other aspects, this revision petition shall stand dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is disposed of. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J October 01, 2010 GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C. No.1950 of 2010 Date: 01.10.2010 Gk.