THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 Aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.12.2003 made in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 1998 by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) Ongole whereby the Judgment dated 29.04.1998 passed by the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala in C.C.No.124 of 1993 was partly modified, the accused preferred this revision. 2 Brief facts are that the petitioner was the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 27 U 0045. On 01.07.1992 the petitioner was carrying about 100 persons in that lorry from Santharavur to Vetapalem. At about 5-45 AM while the lorry was in transit, due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner the said lorry turned upside down due to which two persons died and about 50 persons sustained simple and grievous injuries. After the accident the petitioner absconded from the scene of offence. In that connection a case in Cr.No.20 of 1992 was registered for the offences punishable under sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC and under section 134(a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act. After investigation the police filed the charge sheet and the same was taken on file by the trial court as C.C.No.124 of 1993. 3 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 21 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.66. The trial court having analysed the said evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offences and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC, further sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of ten days for the offence punishable under 337 of IPC, and further sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of twenty days for the offence punishable under 338 of IP. The trial court also sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days for the offences punishable under Section 134(a) (b) of the M.V. Act. 4 The petitioner questioned the said judgment dated 29.04.1998 by way of Criminal Appeal No.124 of 1993 and the learned Additional District Judge while setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC, upheld the conviction and sentences imposed on the petitioner for the rest of the offences. Questioning the same, the petitioner preferred this revision. 5 Heard. 6 The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but however, requested t he court to take a lenient view in so far as the said sentence is concerned. 7 In the light of the said submission this court looked into the record. As seen from the record, the appeal was dismissed on 24.12.2003 and the petitioner was taken into custody on the same day itself and it is only after admission of this revision and granting of bail by this court on 03.01.2004, the petitioner came out of the jail. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner was in jail for a period of ten days. As the said sentence imposed by the courts below is only imprisonment for one year, and as the petitioner was in jail for about 10 days and since the offence is of the year 1992, this court takes a lenient view. 8 Accordingly, the said sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year imposed on the petitioner by the courts below for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. Excepting the above modification, in all other aspects this revision is dismissed. -------------- 09.11.2010 Kvsn