THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1923 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein-Accused No.4 and five others were tried by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon in C.C.No.408 of 1999 for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and Exs.P-1 to P-16 were exhibited, besides marking M.Os.1 to 7. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence by his judgment, dated 19.07.2004, found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the petitioner-A-4 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the said offence. The said judgment was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No.119 of 2004 and the learned Sessions Judge, Warangal, partly allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentenced imposed on the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 411 IPC and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court. The same is questioned in this Revision. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.08.1999, the priest of Venugopala Swamy temple at Komalla Village-P.W-1 lodged a complaint with Raghunathpally Police Station stating that at about 6.30 pm on 03.08.1999, he closed the temple and opened it on the next day morning and found the idols of Venugopala swamy, Rukminidevi and other five idols with eight gold pusthelu and silver flutes missing. In this connection, a case was registered. During the course of investigation into the case, on 14.07.1999, A-2 and A-3 were apprehended, later, they led to the house of A-1 and A-4 and that on the voluntary confessional statements of the accused, the aforesaid idols of the gods were seized. The said idols were identified by P.W-1. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for four days. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the record. Apparently, the impugned judgment was pronounced on 05.11.2004 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 09.11.2004, he was released from the jail. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was in jail for about four days. Hence, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of four months for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC imposed on the petitioner-accused No.4 by the Sessions Judge, Warangal, in Crl.A.No.119 of 2004, vide his judgment, dated 05.11.2004 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