THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.805 of 2011 JUDGMENT: On the basis of the complaint given by the de facto- complainant, the petitioner herein was tried by the I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar in S.C.No.196 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-5 were marked. The learned Judge after assessing the entire evidence which was brought on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner and another-accused No.3 are guilty of the said offence punishable under Section 395 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. The same is questioned by the accused by filing Criminal Appeal No.124 of 2010, wherein the said findings of the trial Court were confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. Questioning the same, the petitioner herein, who is Accused No.1, filed this Criminal Revision Case. Brief facts are that on the intervening night of 24/25-12- 2006, accused No.1-the petitioner herein and other accused, being members of interstate dacoity gang, stopped the lorry bearing No.TN 28-U-8199, which is loaded with biscuit cartoons on National High way No.1 and forcibly entered into cabin of the said lorry, beat the driver and cleaner of the said lorry, tied their hands, and after that, fled away with the said lorry and transferred the entire load of biscuits into their lorry, and handed over the same to A-2 at Hyderabad, who, in turn disposed of the said stolen property. Thus, the accused No.1-the petitioner herein and other accused committed the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC. The police concerned after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar, who had taken the same on file and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar division. When the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioner had undergone a sentence of about 3 ½ years as of now. But, the learned counsel could not demonstrate the same and the learned Public Prosecutor also could not get any instructions with regard to the sentence of imprisonment suffered by the petitioner. However, as the alleged offence is of the year 2006 and the sentence imposed on the petitioner by both the Courts below is rigorous imprisonment for five years, this Court is of the view that the same can be reduced to four years. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed in all other aspects. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 06th April 2011 DR