THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1927 & 1928 of 2003 DATED: 04-03-2010 COMMON ORDER: Accused 2 and 3 filed Crl.R.C.No.1927 of 2003 and the 1st accused filed Crl.R.C.No.1928 of 2003. Since the issue raised in both the cases is one and the same, both the cases are being disposed of by this common order. 2. On the basis of a complaint given by P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.14 1999 was registered against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 355 and 506 IPC. After investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Inavolu filed a charge sheet and after committal the same was numbered as S.C.No.807 of 1999 and the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge tried the petitioners herein. 3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and exhibited Exs.P1 to 14, whereas the accused got examined D.Ws.1 to 3 and exhibited Ex.D1. M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. 4. On an analysis of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge at Narasaraopet came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused and accordingly sentenced the 1st accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the charge under Section 332 IPC and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC and two years for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Similarly, A2 and A3 were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and also to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 332 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. As against the said judgment, dated 04-12-2003, petitioners approached the Sessions Court and filed two appeals in Crl.A.Nos.542 and 543 of 2000 and the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur while confirming the said sentence, dismissed the said appeals. Hence, these two Criminal Revision Cases. 5. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet filed before the Court below is as follows: “P-Kamma Srinivasa Rao was working as a Manager of the Vijaya Bank, Talarlapalli Branch. A1 borrowed an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- from the Vijaya Bank in 1995, under P.M.R.Y.Scheme and he became due a sum of Rs.35,000/- to the bank by the time of this incident. In spite of demand noticeis served on A1, he did not discharge the loan amount. While so, on 16-03-1999 P.W.1 locked the mill of A1. While the matter stood thus, on 19-03-1999 at about 1.30 p.m., P.W.1 along with his attender-Vericherla Nancharaiah (P.W.3) left for recovery of the loan. While they reached near the village center, the three accused who were engaged by locking of mill by P.W.1 came back and got stopped P.W.1 and P.W.3. The accused pulled out P.W.1 from the motor cycle by abusing him. They also beat P.W.1 with hand and legs indiscriminately. They also threatned P.W.1 that they would kill him as he locked their mill. The accused forcibly took P.W.1 and other bank staff to the rice mill of A1 situated in Datlavaripalem village. The accused forced them to break open the lock of the mill. Thereafter the accused threatened P.W.1 and their bank staff and obtained their signatures on some papers on which it was written that the locks of the mill were broke open by the bank staff by themselves. They also obtained the signatures of P.W.1 and other bank staff that they would kill their family members if they report to the police. Thereafter, P.W.1 came to the police and submitted a written report which was registered as case in Cr.No.14 of 1999 under Sections 332, 355 and 506 IPC on 19-03-1999 at 7.00 p.m. During the course of investigation P.W.1 was sent to the Medical Officer. His torn shirt was also seized by the police. The Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketches of the observation report. The doctor who examined P.W.1 issued wound certificate stating that P.W.1 sustained simple injuries. Thus during the course of investigation it came to light that the accused assaulted and caused injuries to P.W.1 who is a public servant with an intention to do away his life. Hence, the charge sheet”. 6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly conceded that it is a case for acquittal and a lenient view may be taken against the petitioners. In the light of the said statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court looked into the other aspects of the case. Apparently, the alleged offence, even according to the case of the prosecution, had taken place prior to 1999 and the crime was registered on 19-03-1999. Further, from the record, it is established that the petitioners were in jail for a period of more than one month. 7. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that a lenient view may be taken against the petitioners. Accordingly, the said sentence of imprisonment, imposed by the Courts below on various counts, is reduced to that of the period already undergone while maintaining the fine amount of Rs.1000/- imposed against the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 3 each for the offence punishable under Section 332 IPC. However, petitioners herein are further directed to pay a fine amount of Rs.5000/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 506 IPC. 8. With the above modification, these Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 04th March, 2010. Tsy