THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.651 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 Petitioner herein along with four others was tried as accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Palakol, West Godavari District in C.C.No.98 of 2001 for the offence punishable under sections 420 and 406 of IPC. During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 26 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.20. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 07.06.2010 the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.149 of 2010 before the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Narsapur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while concurring with the findings given by the trial court, and dismissing the said appeal, however, reduced the said sentence of imprisonment from three years to that of two years and ten months and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month by judgment dated 16.03.2011. Questioning the same, this revision is preferred by the second accused. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that in the month of May 1997 all the accused approached the residents of Pandithavilluru and represented that they are running ‘Sagar Innovations Architech Unit” in Visakhapatnam and their main aim is to improve the financial status of poor victims and with their representations all the accused with a common object of cheating the victims got believed their versions. Then all the victims believed the representations made by the accused that they would pay double the amount within two years and collected Rs.21,89,400/- from 35 victims by executing promissory notes and failed to repay the said amount. On the basis of the report given by P.W.1 a case in Cr.No.51 of 2000 was registered and investigated into and after completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet. 3 When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, he requested this court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is concerned. 4 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 16.03.2011 and from then onwards the petitioner is in jail. Thus from the last one week the petitioner is in jail. Having regard to the fact that the said offence relates to the year 1997 and inasmuch as the petitioner is made roaming from one court to another for all these years, and also in view of the fact that the petitioner had already served a sentence of one week by now, this court is of the view that lenient view can be taken in so far as the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the court below is concerned, but by enhancing the amount of fine imposed on the petitioner by the appellate court. 5 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) West Godavari District at Narsapur in Criminal Appeal No.149 of 2010 by judgment dated 16.03.2011 is modified and the said sentence is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. However, the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- imposed on the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- and the balance amount of fine shall be paid within four weeks from today. Excepting the said modification in all other aspects this revision is dismissed. ____________ 21.03.2011 Kvsn