HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.963 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner- accused against the judgment, dated 08.04.2005, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2004 by the III Addl. Sessions Judge at Karimnagar. 2. The petitioner-accused was prosecuted in C.C.No.516 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. After due trial, the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, convicted the petitioner under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the D.P. Act and further directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently, vide judgment, dated 11.10.2004. 3. As against the said conviction, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2004 on the file of the III Addl. Sessions Judge at Karimnagar and the learned Sessions Judge, having gone through both the oral and documentary evidence, upheld the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate, vide judgment, dated 08.04.2005. Challenging the same, the petitioners preferred this revision. 4. Heard both sides. 5. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner. 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 petitioner has to look after his parents. Admittedly, the offence took place in the year 2003 and for all these years the petitioner suffered humiliation. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to show some lenience towards the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the conviction recorded against the petitioner-accused by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act as confirmed by the appellate Court is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment is modified to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner-accused. The fine amount imposed for the said offences by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court is not interfered with. 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.963 OF 2005 DATE: 09.12.2010 Between : Nanugonda Sattaiah … Petitioner/ Accused and State of A.P. ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.963 of 2005 (Disposed of) 9th December, 2010 cbs