THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.598 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein was tried as accused in C.C.No.180 of 2007 for the offence punishable under sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence both oral and documentary found the petitioner guilty of the said offences and accordingly sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and also to pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days for the offence under section 337 of IPC, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC and further sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC. As against the said judgment dated 17.05.2010, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2010 and the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Khammam, by his judgment dated 25.02.2011 while concurring with the said findings given by the learned Magistrate, dismissed the said appeal. 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 the intervening night of 24.12.2006 at 3.00 A.M. the petitioner being the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TU 9765 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the RTC Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 2864 near the culvert of Thallampadu village as a result of which the driver of the said RTC bus sustained multiple injuries and died in the hospital while undergoing treatment and that P.W.2 and others sustained simple and grievous injuries. 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 25.02.2011 and the petitioner was taken into custody immediately and since then he has been in jail. So the petitioner was in jail for a period of 5 days. In that view of the matter, since the petitioner was in jail for a period of five days, this court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken in so far as the said sentence is concerned. 6 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam in Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2010 by judgment dated 25.02.2011 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. ____________ SRI T.G.K, J 1st March 2011 Kvsn