HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL. REVISION CASE No. 883 OF 2004 Thursday, the Fifth Day of August, Two Thousand and Ten Between A. Hygreevarao Petitioner AND Behara Sreenivasarao Patnaik and others Respondents ORAL ORDER: The Police Chinthakani filed charge sheet on the allegation that on 18.6.2000 at about 8.00 a.m. when PW- 3 went to the outskirts of village to answer calls of nature, the petitioner is said to have appeared, caught hold of her hand and took her away to Bhiravanipalli village and to different villages. As her daughter was missing, her father who is examined as PW-1 searched for her and since her whereabouts were not known, gave report to the police on the basis of which, a case in Cr. No. 32 of 2001 was registered under Sec. 363 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet is filed, which was taken on file as CC No. 334 of 2000 by the learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam. During the course of trial, prosecution pressed into service the evidence of PWs. 1 to 8 and also exhibited Ex.P-1 to P-4. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner but Exs. D-1 and D-2 were marked. The trial court, having analysed the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had established guilt of the petitioner and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven days. The said judgment was questioned by the petitioner herein by filing Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2002 and the learned III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Khammam by his judgment dated 17.5.2004, while concurring with the findings recorded by the trial court, dismissed the said appeal. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Revision under Sec. 397 and 401 Cr. P.C. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, this court is of the considered view that the courts below have rightly concluded that the petitioner is guilty of the offence under Sec.363 IPC. As can be seen from the records, immediately after registration of the crime, the petitioner was arrested and was remanded to judicial custody and again after dismissal of the appeal by the appellate court on 17.5.2004, he was taken into custody and thereafter by virtue of the bail granted by this court on 25.5.2004. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner had undergone substantive sentence. As the sentence imposed by the court below is only for a period of six months simple imprisonment and the petitioner was in jail for some time, this court intends to take a lenient view. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment of six months is reduced to that the period already undergone. With this modification in the sentence of imprisonment the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the impugned judgment in all other aspects. _____________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada August 4, 2010 MAS