HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.915 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioners- accused against the judgment, dated 01.08.2003, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.316 of 2002 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddapah. 2. The petitioners-accused were prosecuted in C.C.No.126 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. After due trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandalur, convicted the petitioner under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each, vide judgment, dated 19.11.2002. 3. As against the said conviction, the petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No.316 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge at Cuddapah and the learned Sessions Judge, after re-appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the Criminal Appeal while confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioners by the learned Magistrate, vide judgment, dated 01.08.2003. Challenging the same, the petitioners preferred this revision. 4. Heard both sides. 5. In view of submission of the petitioners’ counsel that during pendency of the Criminal Revision Case, the 2nd petitioner- accused No.2 died; the charge is abated against him. 6. As far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, after arguing for sometime, the learned counsel by not pressing the main prayer confined his arguments to the extent of imposition of sentence and requested the Court to show some indulgence on the 1st petitioner. 7. In view of the said submission and also the fact that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have given concurrent findings, this Court is of the view that the merits and demerits of the prosecution case and the impugned judgment need not be adjudicated. 8. It is represented that the 1st petitioner is the sole bread- winner of the family and he has to look after the necessities of his family members. Admittedly, the offence took place in the year 2001 and for all these years the 1st petitioner suffered humiliation. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to show some lenience towards the 1st petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the conviction recorded against the 1st petitioner-accused No.1 by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC as confirmed by the appellate Court is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment is modified to that of the period already undergone by the 1st petitioner. Further, the 1st petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as fine before the trial Court within a period of four (4) weeks. 10. In all other respects, the impugned judgment shall stand confirmed. 11. Subject to the above, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 10th February, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.915 OF 2005 DATE: 10.02.2011 Between : Mallu Siva Reddy and another … Petitioners/ Accused and State of A.P. ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.915 of 2005 (Disposed of) 10th February, 2011 CBS