THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1708 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of the III-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.A.No.386 of 2003 dated 17.09.2004 confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 406 of I.P.C., imposed against the petitioner-accused, by the VI-Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.52 of 1998 dated 25.09.2003. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 and the accused are partners of M/s Srinivasa Securities situated at Babukhan Estate, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad. Since P.W.1 was a student, the accused was operating finance and accounts of the said firm and that the accused sold the shares pertaining to suryavanshi Spinning Mills Colgate Palmolive Limited and Digital Equipment Indian Limited under binami names and thus he committed criminal breach of trust. The accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406 and 420 of I.P.C. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D8 were marked. On perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 406 of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner- accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned III-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on the accused 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 the Courts below, but, however, he requested this Court to take a lenient view so far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the Courts below 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 17.09.2004 and the petitioner-accused was taken into custody on the same day itself and that he came out of the jail by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 06.10.2004 after admitting this revision. So it is clear from the record that the petitioner was in jail for a period of about 20 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-accused to that of the period already undergone by him. In the result, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of One year imposed against the revision petitioner- accused by the Courts below for the offence punishable under Section 406 of I.P.C. is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner-accused has already undergone.. The 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 modification in the sentence of imprisonment. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 17-02-2011 Gsn.