THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1920 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein was tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, in C.C.No.295 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 471 of Indian Penal Code. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-8 were marked. On behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the said offence and accordingly, by his judgment dated 10.04.2001, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 471 IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. The same was questioned by the accused by filing Criminal Appeal No.69 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, who by his judgment, dated 03.11.2004, while concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment rendered by the trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case. The accused was charge sheeted as he produced driving licence viz., D..No.2961/87, which was issued to one P.Balanageswara Rao, at the time of interview to the post of driver in APSRTC, and believing that the same stands in the name of the petitioner, the selection committee consisting of P.W-5, N.Vivekananda and K.Sankara Rao selected him and call letter was sent to him and the accused also underwent training for a certain period. However, P.Ws.4 and 7, on verification of the RTO records, found that the said driving licence was issued in the name of some other person. Hence, a crime for the offence punishable under Section 471 was registered against the petitioner and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference, but, however, submitted that the petitioner was in jail for a period of about one week and requested this Court to take a lenient view and acquit the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the record. Apparently, the impugned judgment was pronounced on 03.11.2004 and immediately, he was sent to jail to suffer the imprisonment imposed on him. Subsequently, by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 10.11.2004, he was released from the jail. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was in jail for about one week. Hence, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC imposed on the petitioner-accused by both the Courts below is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 27th January 2011 DR