HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.101 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Kakinada, in Crl.A.No.95 of 2009 dated 19.01.2011 confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for two months, for the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) read with Section 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, imposed against the revision petitioner-A1 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, in C.C.No.470 of 2008 dated 03.06.2009. It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.02.2008 at 6 P.M on N.H.5 road, Mallepalli village, P.W.2 along with his staff, found the accused in possession of 50 litres of I.D. arrack worth Rs.5,000/- in two cement bags and the same was seized under cover of mediators report. The petitioner- A1 and four other accused were tried for the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) read with Section 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 to prove the guilt of the accused. On perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, while acquitting A-2 to A-5 for the offence with which they were charged, found the revision petitioner-A1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) read with Section 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner-A1 against the said conviction and sentence, the learned IV- Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-A1 preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the 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-A1. 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 petitioner-A1 was in jail from 22.02.2008 to 03.03.2008 and 03.06.2009 to 06.06.2009 and also subsequent to the dismissal of the criminal appeal by the appellate Court i.e., from 19.01.2011 to till date. So it is clear from the record that the petitioner was in jail for a period of about one month. 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-A1 to that of the period already undergone by him. In the result, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of One year imposed against the revision petitioner- A1 by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, in C.C.N.470 of 2008 dated 03.06.2009, as confirmed by the IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinda, in Crl.A.No.95 of 2009 dated 19.01.2011, for the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) read with Section 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, is reduced to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioner-A1, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner-A1 is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. With the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 31-01-2011 Gsn.