HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.638 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, in Crl.A.No.26 of 2000, dated 04.06.2002 confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 3 (a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 imposed against the revision petitioner-A3 by the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada in C..C.No.167 of 1995 dated 25.01.2000. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P21 to prove the guilt of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, found the revision petitioner-A3 and two others guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3 (a) of R.P. (U.P.) Act, 1966 and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner-A3 against the said conviction and sentence, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-A3 preferred this criminal revision. This Court, on 11.06.2002, while suspending the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioner, enlarged him on bail. Heard both sides. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the judgments delivered by both the Courts below, this Court of the view that the Courts below have rightly applied its mind and came to the conclusion that the revision petitioner-A3 was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3 (a) of R.P. (U.P.) Act, 1966. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also not shown me anything, which would discredit the evidence. Hence the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court against the revision petitioner-A3 is upheld. I see no merit in the revision. As regards the sentence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner-A3 had undergone substantive sentence of imprisonment during the course of trial and also after the appellate Court pronounced the judgment and hence the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct. The appeal was dismissed on 04.06.2002 and immediately the petitioner was taken into custody. Thereafter, in this revision, the petitioner was granted bail by this Court on 11.06.2002. As an under trial prisoner, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was in jail for about 10 days. Since the occurrence took place as early as in the year 1995 and the revision petitioner had already undergone the sentence of about fifteen days, this Court is of the view that it is suffice to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of one year, as was imposed by the Courts below, to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioner-A3, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against him. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other crime. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 08.07.2010 Gsn.