HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.957 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioners- A.1 & A.2 against the judgment, dated 21.06.2005, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2005 by the Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. 2. The petitioners-A.1 & A.2 were prosecuted in C.C.No.295 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 7(i)(d) of the P.C.R. Act, 1955. After due trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, convicted the 1st petitioner-A.1 under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 IPC and also sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 7(i)(d) of the P.C.R. Act and the learned Magistrate also convicted the 2nd petitioner-A.2 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 448 IPC, while acquitting him of the offences punishable under Section 506 IPC and Section 7(i)(d) of the P.C.R. Act, vide judgment, dated 23.12.2004. 3. As against the said conviction, the petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru and the learned Sessions Judge, having gone through both the oral and documentary evidence, upheld the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioners by the learned Magistrate, vide judgment, dated 21.06.2005. Challenging the same, the petitioners preferred this revision. 4. Heard both sides. 5. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioners by not pressing the main prayer confined his arguments to the extent of imposition of sentence and requested the Court to show some indulgence on the petitioners. 6. In view of the said submission and also the fact that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have given concurrent findings, this Court is of the view that merits of the prosecution case and impugned judgment need not be adjudicated. 7. It is represented that the petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their families and have to look after the welfare of their family members. Admittedly, the offence took place in the year 2002 and for all these years the petitioners suffered humiliation. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to show some lenience towards the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the 1st petitioner-A.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 506 IPC and Section 7(i)(d) of the P.C.R. Act, as confirmed by the appellate Court, is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 7(i)(d) of the P.C.R. Act is modified to that of the period already undergone by him and the fine amount imposed under each count of the offences is not interfered with. As far as the 2nd petitioner-A.2 is concerned, the conviction and sentence of imposition of fine against him for the offence punishable under Section 448 IPC is confirmed. 9. In all other respects, the impugned judgment shall stand confirmed. 10. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 9th December, 2010 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.957 OF 2005 DATE: 09.12.2010 Between : Jonnalagadda Durga Rao and another … Petitioners/ A.1 & A.2 and State of A.P. ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.957 of 2005 (Disposed of) 9th December, 2010 cbs