THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.950 of 2004 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein was tried as accused in C.C.No.612 of 1999 for the offence punishable under section 407 of IPC by the learned IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. The learned Magistrate having assessed the said evidence, found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/, in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. As against the said judgment dated 07.03.2002, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.137 of 2002 and the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur by his judgment dated 01.04.2004 while concurring with the said finding given by the learned Magistrate, dismissed the said appeal. Questioning the same the accused before the trial court preferred this revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioner is owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 13 T 5364 and that he pledged the same with P.W.8 and that in view of his financial difficulties he began to hatch evil plans to earn more money by deceitful means. While so on 5.8.1998 the petitioner loaded 238 bags of chilly worth Rs,2,78,250/- from the market yard of Guntur and with an evil intention he misappropriated all the chilly bags after making the entries at the check post at Perecherla and later took the lorry to Reddipalem village and left the lorry there and informed to P.W.8 on 8.8.1998 stating that he brought his lorry to the loading of palmyrah leaves and the lorry was struck in drainage water and asked him for helping and later the petitioner left the lorry there itself and absconded from the place. After when the purchasers of the chilly informed about non receipt of chilly bags, P.W.1 lodged a report and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.384 of 1998 under sections 406 of IPC by Lalapet P.S. and investigated into and after completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed. 3 Heard both sides. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, he requested the court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. 5 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 01.04.2004 and the petitioner was taken into custody immediately. It is only after the revision was admitted and bail was granted by this court on 18.06.2004, the petitioner came out from the jail. So the petitioner was in jail for a period of more than 2 ½ months. In that view of the matter, since the offence for which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced relates to the year 1998, further, as the petitioner was in jail for a period of 2 ½ months, this court takes a lenient view and reduces the said sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year, as imposed by the courts blow, to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. 6 Excepting the above modification, this revision in all other aspects is dismissed. -------------- 03.02.2011 Kvsn