HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.892 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner- accused against the judgment, dated 04.05.2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.143 of 2002 by the Addl. Sessions Judge at Hindupur. 2. The petitioner-accused was prosecuted in C.C.No.25 of 1999 for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 409 IPC. After due trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madakasira, convicted the petitioner under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC and further directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently, vide judgment, dated 29.04.2002. 3. As against the said conviction, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.143 of 2002 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge at Hindupur and the learned Sessions Judge, after reappreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the Criminal Appeal while confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate, vide judgment, dated 04.05.2004. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred this revision. 4. Heard both sides. 5. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner by not pressing the main prayer confined his arguments to the extent of imposition of sentence and requested the Court to show some indulgence on the petitioner. 6. In view of the said submission and also the fact that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have given concurrent findings, this Court is of the view that the merits and demerits of the prosecution case and the impugned judgment need not be adjudicated. 7. It is represented that the petitioner is 64 years old and he is not feeling well. Admittedly, the offence took place in the year 1999 and for all these years the petitioner suffered humiliation. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to show some lenience towards the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the conviction recorded against the petitioner-accused by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 409 IPC as confirmed by the appellate Court is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment is modified to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner-accused. The fine imposed for the said offences by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court is not interfered with. 9. In all other respects, the impugned judgment shall stand confirmed. 10. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 24th January, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.892 OF 2005 DATE: 24.01.2011 Between : C. Veerakyathappa … Petitioner/ Accused and State of A.P. ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.892 of 2005 (Disposed of) 24th January, 2011 cbs