THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.672 of 2004 ORDER: 1 The petitioners herein were tried by the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada in C.C.No.198 of 1996 for the offence punishable under section 3 (a) of R.P. (U.P) Act, 1966. 2 The facts in brief are that on 23.06.1996 at 5.00 p.m. the petitioners 1 and 2 were found in possession of some material belonging to the railway department, and that they confessed to have committed theft of the said material from the stocks of Engineering material at Bikkavolu Dump and that they were proceeding to dispose of the same to the third petitioner. The petitioners further confessed that previously also they committed theft of some other property belonging to the railway department and sold the same to the third petitioner. Basing on the confession made by the petitioners 1 and 2 the railway police seized the material from the third petitioner. 3 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and M.Os.1 to 4. 4 The trial court having assessed the said evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioners are guilty of the said offence and accordingly by its judgment dated 19.04.2000 convicted and sentenced the petitioners to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. Questioning the same, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2000 and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada by his judgment dated 11.12.2003 while concurring with the findings given by the trial court dismissed the said appeal. Hence the present revision. 5 When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded there are no merits in this revision and that the judgments of the courts below need no interference, however, requested the court take a lenient view in so far as the said sentence imposed on the petitioner is concerned. 6 In the light of the said submission, this court looked into the record. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on 11.12.2003 and the petitioners were taken into custody immediately. It is only after this revision was admitted and bail was granted on 06.04.2004, the petitioners came out of the jail. Thus the petitioners were in jail for a period of nearly four months. Since the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners is only for a period of one year and inasmuch as the petitioners were already in jail for a period of nearly four months, and since the date of offence is 23.06.1996, this court takes a lenient view and reduces the said sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year to that of the period which the petitioners had already undergone. 7 Excepting the above modification, this revision, in all other aspects, is dismissed. --------------- 03.02.2011 Kvsn