THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.712 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 Petitioners herein were tried as accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Special Mobile) at Nalgonda in C.C.No.8 of 2005 for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9 and M.O.1. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence found the petitioners guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 07.07.2006 the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2006 before the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Nalgonda, however, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while concurring with the findings given by the trial court, dismissed the said appeal by judgment dated 22.11.2010. Questioning the same, the accused preferred this revision. 2 Facts in brief are that the petitioners approached P.W.1 and requested him to advance loan of an amount of Rs.20,000/- by pledging a gold waist belt. Believing the words of the petitioners P.W.1 advanced the said amount as loan to the petitioners. But after a few days, having entertained doubt, P.W.1 went to a goldsmith and on verification he came to know that the said waist belt is a brass coated belt. In that connection P.W.1 lodged a complaint whereupon the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Nalgonda registered a case in Cr.No.202 of 2006 for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC and investigated into and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet. 3 When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, he requested this court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners is concerned. 4 Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners this court looked into the record. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on 22.11.2010. But on the said date as the petitioners were not present, N.B.Ws were issued against the petitioners and it is only on 03.03.2011 the petitioners were arrested and from then onwards they have been in jail. Thus from the last seven days the petitioners are in jail. Having regard to the fact that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners is only for a period of six months and also in view of the fact that the petitioners have already served a sentence of one week by now, this court is of the view that lenient view can be taken in so far as the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners by the courts below is concerned. 5 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) Nalgonda in Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2006 by judgment dated 22.11.2010 is modified and the said sentence is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioners had already undergone. Excepting the said modification in all other aspects this revision is dismissed. _________ 10.03.2011 Kvsn