THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2053 of 2004 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein was tried as accused in C.C.No.75 of 1999 for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and under sections 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, West Godavari at Eluru. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P26. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence both oral and documentary, acquitted the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act, but, however, found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. As against the said judgment dated 12.02.2001, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2001 and the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Eluru, by his judgment dated 09.12.2004 while upholding the conviction given by the trial court, however, modified the said sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year to that of six months. Questioning the same the accused before the trial court preferred this revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26.01.1997 at 9.00 PM when the deceased by name Marripudi Chandra Rao stood by the side of N.H.5 road opposite to the mini lorry stand at Eluru, the petitioner being the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 37 T 4676, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner while proceeding from Visakhapatnam to Vishnuparaum of Nalgonda District with Gypsum load and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and the left front and rear wheels of the said lorry ran over the deceased causing his instantaneous death. In that connection a case in Cr.No.6 of 1997 was registered and investigated into and after completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet. 3 Heard both sides. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, he requested the court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. 5 Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner this court looked into the record. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on 09.12.2004 and the petitioner was taken into custody immediately. It is only after the revision was admitted and bail was granted by this court on 14.12.2004, the petitioner came out of the jail. From the above, the petitioner was in jail for a period of nearly 15 days. In that view of the matter, since the offence for which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced relates to the year 1997, and as the petitioner was in jail for a period of 15 days, this court takes a lenient view and reducing the said sentences of imprisonment imposed by the appellate court to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. 6 Excepting the above modification, this revision in all other aspects is dismissed. -------------- 28.01.2011 Kvsn