IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 895 of 2005 Between: Metta Srinivas … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri D.P.V. Prasad Counsel for the Respondent : Addl. Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 895 OF 2005 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the IV-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2004 dated 15-6- 2005 confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in CC.No.78 of 2000 dated 28-6- 2004. 2. The petitioner was tried for the offences punishable under section 419, 420 and 472 of IPC. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner (A2) guilty for the offences punishable under section 419, 420 and 471 of IPC and he was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 419 of IPC. Further the petitioner was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under section 420 of IPC. The petitioner is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under section 471 of IPC and directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. On appeal, the learned IV-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, on re- appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate in respect of the petitioner (A-2) in Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2004 dated 15-6-2005. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 3. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument only with regard to the quantum of sentence and prayed mercy of this court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor representing the State. This Court perused the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by both the courts below and the same is confirmed, but however, taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment inflicted by the both the courts below is modified to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner. However, the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) for each of the offence; viz., section 419, 420 and 471 of IPC aggregating to Rs.30,000/- (Rs.Thirty Thousand only) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, apart from the fine which he already paid in the trial Court. 6. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision is disposed of. ______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 21-10-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 895 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 126 Date: 21-10-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L