THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.787 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 Petitioner herein was tried as accused by the learned VI Additional Munsif Magistrate Guntur, in C.C.No.37 of 2000 for the offence punishable under sections 468 and 471 of IPC. During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence though found the petitioner not guilty of the offence punishable under section 468 of IPC, however, found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under section 471 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 16.01.2001 the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.86 of 2001 and the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur while concurring with the findings given by the trial court dismissed the said appeal by judgment dated 20.04.2004. Questioning the same, this revision is preferred by the second accused. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioner made an application for appointment as conductor in APSRTC and along with his application he attached Photostat copies of his S.S.C. marks memo in which the date of birth was shown as 10-8-1964 and the total marks obtained by him as per the said certificate are 367 and ultimately he got selection for the said post in the Corporation. The members of the interview committee having suspected the genuineness of the SSC certificate of the petitioner, sent the same to the Chief Security Inspector, Guntur for verification who in turn on 06.11.1997 visited the Municipal High School, Repalle and met the in-charge Head Master of the said school. After due verification, it revealed that the petitioner altered not only the marks he obtained in SSC but also his date of birth in the said certificate. His actual date of birth was 10.08.1961 but not 10-8-1964. In that connection a case in Cr.No.194 of 1997 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 20.04.2004 and it is only after this revision was admitted and bail was granted by this court on 26.04.2004 the petitioner came out of the jail. Thus the petitioner is in jail for a period of one week. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the petitioner was in jail for some period when he was initially remanded to judicial custody by the trial court. Having regard to the fact that the said offence relates to the year 1997 i.e. about 14 years back and inasmuch as the petitioner was in jail more than ten days 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 courts below is concerned. 5 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by both the courts below 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. ____________ 24.03.2011 Kvsn