THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1945 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein was tried by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar in C.C.No.632 of 2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and Exs.P-1 to P-13 were exhibited. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence by his judgment, dated 10.08.2004, found the petitioner guilty of the said offences and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four weeks for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four weeks for the offence under Section 338 IPC. The said judgment was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No.108 of 2004 and the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, while concurring with the said findings of the trial Court, dismissed the appeal. The same is questioned in this Revision. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.05.2002, at about a.m., the accused parked his lorry on the road at Shamshabad, without any precautions and parking lights. While so, the deceased-Janagama Srinivas and P.W-3- Janagama Rajaiah were proceeding on a motor cycle and the deceased had not observed the parked lorry in the focus of opposite vehicle and dashed to the parked vehicle and succumbed to the injuries. Thus, the accident occurred due to the negligent parking of the said lorry by the accused, and in this connection, after completion of the investigation into the crime registered, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Manakondur Police Station filed the charge sheet against the petitioner- accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of about two weeks. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the record. Apparently, the impugned judgment was pronounced on 05.11.2004 and immediately, he was sent to jail to suffer the imprisonment imposed on him. Subsequently, by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 19.11.2004, he was released from the jail. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was in jail for about two weeks. Hence, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC imposed on the petitioner-accused by both the Courts below is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 27th January 2011 DR