IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 532 of 2005 Between: Majeti Srinivasa Rao … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Prattipati Venkateswarlu Counsel for the Respondent : Addl. Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 532 OF 2005 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the VII-Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Criminal Appeal No. 431 of 2002, dated 24-03-2005, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the V-Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, in CC.No. 294 of 2004, dated 21-10-2002, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was found guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for four months. 2. The petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for four months. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate stated hereinabove. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 3. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several contentions but at last confines his argument only with regard to the quantum of sentence and prayed mercy of this court. He further submitted that the petitioner was working as Attender in Revenue Divisional Office and he quit the job and he is not in a position to refund the amount. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor representing the State. This Court perused the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration of the fact that the offence took place in the year 1998, that the petitioner left the job and he is not in a position to return the money. I do not see any reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by both the courts below and the same is confirmed, but however, the sentence of imprisonment inflicted is modified and reduced to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner. However, the fine amount paid by the petitioner shall remain unaltered. 6. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision is dismissed. ______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 22-11-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 532 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. Date: 22-11-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L