HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1895 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, in Crl.A.No.95 of 2003 dated 12.10.2004 confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offence punishable under Section 417 of I.P.C. imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad, in C.C.No.160 of 1999 dated 10.07.2003. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 used to go to Kodad to learn tailoring in Mahila Mandali Institute and that the accused made her to believe that he would marry her and so representing the accused induced her and had sexual intimacy with her, as a result she was pregnant and subsequently she gave birth to a male child. Even though the accused agreed to marry her in the mediation held by elders, subsequently he refused to marry her. Thus the accused cheated P.W.1 by making such false representations that he would marry her and induced her to submit her body to him knowing very well that the representation made by him is false. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 to prove the guilt of the accused. On perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court held that though the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 493 of I.P.C., but it has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 417 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused for the said offence as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner- accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Suryapet, 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 12.10.2004 and the revision petitioner 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 08.11.2004 after admitting this revision. So it is clear from the record that the petitioner was in jail for a period of about twenty five days. 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 to that of the period already undergone by him. In the result, the sentence of simple 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 imposed against him. The revision 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) 24-02-2011 Gsn.