HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1903 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned V-Additional District and Sessions Judge (III Fast Track Court), Nalgonda at Miryalaguda, in Crl.A.No.82 of 2004 dated 02.11.2004 confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.200/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence punishable under Section 409 of I.P.C. imposed against the revision petitioner-A2 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda, in C.C.No.1689 of 2000 dated 26.05.2004. It is the case of the prosecution that the revision petitioner-A2 and another accused are the conductors of the APSRTC depot, Miryalaguda. It is stated that A-1 and A-2 having sold the ticket block failed to remit the tickets amount into the Depot, thereby misappropriated worth of tickets of Rs.32,137/- by A-1 and Rs.58,044/- by A-2. The accused were tried for the offence punishable under Section 409 of I.P.C. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P56 to prove the guilt of the accused. On perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 409 of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused for the said offence as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner-A2 against the said conviction and sentence, the learned V- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-A2 preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case to interfere with the findings recorded by both the Courts, but, however, he requested this Court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that both the Courts have given sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the petitioner-A2. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the quantum of sentence, it is clear from the record that the criminal appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court on 02.11.2004 and the revision petitioner was taken into custody on the same day itself and that the petitioner-A2 came out of the jail by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 08.11.2004 after admitting this revision. So it is clear from the record that the petitioner was in jail for a period of about one week. In the aforesaid circumstances and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken by reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioner-A2 to that of the period already undergone by him. In the result, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year imposed against the revision petitioner- A2 by the Courts below for the offence with which he was charged, is reduced to that of the period, which the revision petitioner-A2 has already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against him. The revision petitioner-A2 is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with the above said modification. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 24-02-2011 Gsn.