HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1393 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned VI-Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, in Crl.A.No.148 of 2000 dated 05.08.2004 confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 8 (b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act, imposed against the revision petitioner- accused by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Guntur, in C.C.No.2200 of 1996 dated 06.03.2000. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.10.1995 at 7.30 P.M the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Guntur along with his staff, while checking the vehicles at Chuttugunta centre, stopped the R.T.C. bus bearing No.A.P.9-Z-6719 and when checked the bus, they found the suit case of the petitioner-accused containing 10 litres of black plastic can of I.D. arrack and seized the contraband in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2. The accused was tried for the offence under Section 8 (b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 and M.O.1 to prove the guilt of the accused. On perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the revision petitioner- accused guilty of the offence under Section 8 (b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner- accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned VI-Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-accused 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-accused. 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 05.08.2004 and the petitioner-accused was taken into custody on the same day itself and that the petitioner-accused came out of the jail by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 12.08.2004 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-accused to that of the period already undergone by him. In the result, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of Six months imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the Courts below for the offence with which he was charged, is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner-accused has already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine. The petitioner-accused 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) 03-02-2011 Gsn.