THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.951 of 2004 Dated:17.06.2011 Between: M. Narayana Reddy ……Appellant And: State of A.P., rep. By its PP., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …..Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.951 of 2004 ORDER: This revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against judgment dated 07.05.2004 delivered by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Rangareddy in Crl.A.No.8 of 2003, confirming conviction and sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pargi in C.C.No.181 of 1999 dated 23.12.2002, whereby the petitioner herein was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 moths and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of paying it to suffer simple imprisonment for two months with a direction to pay Rs.4,000/- out of the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation to the P.W.1 under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C for offence punishable under Section 417 IPC after tiral. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner/Accused demanded dowry of Rs.40,000/- from the defacto-complainant to marry her with a promise that he would not demand any further dowry in cash or kind, that believing his promise, the mother of the defacto-complainant paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner by selling their land, that the petitioner also executed a deed in favour of her mother acknowledging the receipt of said amount of dowry but thereafter the petitioner postponed the marriage on one pretext or the other. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. Further, Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. In spite of posting the matter under the caption of ‘for orders’, no representation has been made on behalf of the revision petitioner/accused. Heard learned Public Prosecutor. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to allow the petition and set aside the conviction and sentence as prayed for? I have perused the record. On the perusal of the record, it is clear that both the courts below examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and hence there is no reason to interfere with the findings given by both the courts. Further, it is a case of 1999 and ever since the petitioner has been wandering around the courts below and this court and in that connection he might have lost his valuable time and money and also suffered to a great extent particularly after imposing the conviction and sentence. Hence, it is quite reasonable to reduce the sentence to simple imprisonment of six (6) months from rigorous imprisonment of 10 months while keeping the fine clause intact. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is disposed of with the above observation. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J. 17th June, 2011 GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.951 of 2004 Date:17.06.2011 Gk.