THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1992 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein was tried by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur in C.C.No.85 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 279 and 304-A IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 32 and exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-45. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence, by his judgment, dated 25.06.2004, found the petitioner guilty of the said offences and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC; and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 279, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. The said judgment was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2004 and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, while concurring with the said findings of the trial Court, dismissed the appeal, vide judgment, dated 01.12.2004. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present Criminal Revision Case. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.06.2000, at about 5-30 pm., the offending bus bearing No.AP-9Z-5696 was servicing from Khandavalli to Palakole with 101 passengers and when it reached near the land of Kommanduri Badarinarayana of Illapakurru village, one lorry came in the opposite direction and the driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the bus fell down into the adjacent canal, due to which, 34 passengers received injuries. In this connection, basing on the statement of P.W-1, a case was registered and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for about five days. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the record. Apparently, the impugned judgment was pronounced on 01.12.2004 and immediately, the petitioner was sent to jail to suffer the imprisonment imposed on him. Subsequently, by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 06.12.2004, he was released from the jail. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was in jail for quite some time. Hence, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC imposed on the petitioner-accused by both the Courts below, is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 27th January 2011 DR