HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.267 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the revision petitioner- appellant-accused against judgment, dated 09.02.2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.340 of 2003 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, confirming judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.49 of 2002 by the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby and where under the version petitioner/accused was convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Heard. The facts of the case are as follows: On 19.12.2001 at 3.15 p.m. one Syed Hyder Ali lodged a report that he was the Mozam of Mosque Hashma at Hashmabad and that Uni Sound Amplifier was stolen from the said mosque by some unknown offenders by breaking the locks of it with a request to take necessary action. On the basis of the said report, the case was registered in Cr.No.305 of 2001 and was investigated into under Sections 457/380 IPC by the SHO. Similarly, on 22.12.2001 and 23.12.2001 two cases were registered in Cr.Nos.309 and 311 of 2001 on reports given on the ground that one Sony Tape Recorder and one pioneer Tape Recorder and one BPL tape recorder were stolen from a blue bird car and Tayota Car and Matador Van respectively. On 25.12.2001 the Investigating Officer received credible information that one person was trying to sell one car tape recorder to an auto driver at Jeshan Hotel, Chandrayangutta and as such he went to the said spot and found the accused holding one handbag and trying to sell one tape recorder. Immediately, the Investigating Officer detained him and verified the contents of hand bag, which contained one BPL Car tape recorder, which is the stolen property concerned in the Cr.No.311 of 2001 and in the further investigation of the case, the police went to the house of the accused and got seized the other stolen properties pertaining to the Crime Nos.305 and 309 of 2001 and when he enquired with the accused, the accused failed to give proper reply, all took place in the presence of mediators. Hence the charge. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of the accused, none were examined and no documents were marked. The trial Court on appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused for the offence alleged and convicted the accused as narrated above. In the appeal, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued in the case a little but has later contended that the petitioner has been suffering since long time because of the pendency of this case, attending to various courts and loosing lot of his valuable time and also spending lot of expenditure correspondingly and requested the Court to show some mercy on the petitioner with regards to the sentence imposed. I have gone through the record. Both the courts below gave concurrent findings on the basis of evidence adduced giving sound reasoning while convicting the accused. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction. Accordingly, the conviction imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court as far as the accused is concerned, is once again confirmed. In any event, taking into consideration the prevailing circumstances including the representation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate court against the accused from six months to four months. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed subject to that the sentence recorded against the accused in the judgments for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC to undergo R.I. for six months, which was confirmed by the appellate Judge in Crl.A.No.340 of 2003 is hereby modified to RI for a period of four months while retaining the fine clause, whereas the period of remand undergone by the accused during the investigation, trial and after conviction shall be given as set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. ____________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 29th June, 2011. Rns