THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1099 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 2.7.2004 made in Crl.A.No.50 of 2003 by the X Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur. The case of the prosecution is as follows: On 12.6.2002 at about 1 p.m., P.W.2 along with P.w.1 and Sontireddy Narsireddy visited Sai Durga Digital Musicals in Rentachintala and conducted search in the presence of P.w.1, Sontireddy Narsireddy and the accused and found two compact disks in dust-bin made in the corner of South East. P.W.2 showed both the disks through T.V. screen through VCD to P.W.1 and Sontireddy Narsireddy. The compact disk is having obscene figures of lady with gents in various angles. On interrogation, the petitioner-accused confessed that he was circulating obscene compact disks in Rentachintala village and its surroundings for hire. Hence, a case in Crime No.50 of 2002 of Rentachintala Police station was registered against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 292(2)(a) IPC. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.134 of 2002. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused guilty of the offence under Section 292(2)(a) IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The said judgment was questioned by way of filing an appeal in Crl.A.No.50 of 2003 before the X Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioner- accused filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but he requested to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of four days. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused, I feel that the judgment of the appellate Court does not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the offence is of the year 2002 and in view of the fact that the petitioner-accused was in jail for a period of four days, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the Courts below against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 292(2)(a) of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 292(2)(a) of IPC imposed by the Courts below against the petitioner-accused is reduced to that of the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 10th March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1099 of 2004 10.3.2011