HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1424 OF 2004 Date: 26-07-2011 Between: Chedalavada Sai Amar. - - - Petitioner/ Appellant/ Accused. Versus The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondent/ Respondent/ Complainant. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1424 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioner- Accused (for short, ‘the accused’) against judgment, dated 09-08- 2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.477 of 1991 on the file of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur confirming conviction and sentences imposed in Calender Case No.67 of 1999 on the file of VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. 2. The Accused was prosecuted in C.C. No.67 of 1999 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 467, 471 and 409 of I.P.C. After due trial, the learned VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur convicted the Accused under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 409 of I.P.C. and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 467 of I.P.C. and to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 471 I.P.C. and to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of the payment of the fine amount to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C. vide judgment, dated 17- 09-2001, whereas against the conviction and sentences, the accused filed the Criminal Appeal No.477 of 2001 on the file of learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur which was dismissed and challenging the same, the accused has preferred this Revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the Accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent – State. 4. The prosecution version in brief is that the accused being the Junior Assistant in M.P.D.O. Office, Medikonduru was entrusted with the duties of looking after the bills and old age pension files pertaining to the Mandal Primary Education Establishment and Teachers. He was in the custody of chequebook with regards to the funds of primary education there. Taking advantage of his official capacity and the custody of the cheque book, he forged the signatures of PW.1, M.P.D.O. of Medikonduru and encashed Rs.81,160/- on 31-07-1997 and absconded from his official duties. Thus the accused misappropriated the said amount. 5. After arguing for some time, learned counsel appearing for the accused has not pressed the main prayer contenting that the wife of the accused (DW.3) paid the entire misappropriation amount to the Government and also fairly conceding that the prosecution established the charges levelled against the accused with a request to take a lenient view so far as the sentence is concerned. 6. In view of the said submission and also the fact that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court gave concurrent findings, this Court is of the view that the merits of the prosecution case and the impugned judgment need not be adjudicated at this stage. 7. Admittedly, the offence took place in the year 1997 and for all these years the accused must have suffered humiliation by attending various Courts in connection with this case and facing the ordeal of conviction and sentences and loosing valuable part of his life and incurring lot of expenditure. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to show some mercy towards the accused. 8. Accordingly, the conviction and sentences recorded against the Accused by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 467, 471 and 409 of I.P.C. as confirmed by the appellate Court is further confirmed but the sentences are modified and reduced to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 409 I.P.C., Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 467 I.P.C., Simple Imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 471 of I.P.C. and Simple Imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. respectively, keeping the fine clauses in tact with a direction that all the sentences to be run concurrently. The period of detention, if any, undergone by the accused shall be given as set of under Section 428 Cr.P.C. With the above noted modifications, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 26h July, 2011. Dsh THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 100 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1424 OF 2004 July, 26, 2011 DSH