HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1178 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioners- accused Nos.1 and 2 against the judgment, dated 17.05.2005, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2004 by the V Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Nalgonda at Miryalaguda. 2. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 along with accused No.3 were prosecuted in C.C.No.1658 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC. After due trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda, convicted the accused for the said offence under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and accordingly sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months each and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each, vide judgment, dated 13.07.2001. 3. As against the said conviction, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 filed Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2004 on the file of the V Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Nalgonda at Miryalaguda and the learned Sessions Judge, having gone through both the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the Criminal Appeal while confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate, vide judgment, dated 17.05.2005. Challenging the same, the petitioners preferred this revision. 4. Heard both sides. 5. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners. 6. 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 merits of the prosecution case and the impugned judgment need not be adjudicated. 7. It is represented that the petitioners are the only bread winners of their families and have to look after the necessities of their family members. Admittedly, the offence took place in the year 2000 and for all these years the petitioners suffered humiliation. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to show some lenience towards the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the conviction recorded against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment is modified to that of the period already undergone by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 and the fine amount imposed by the trial Court is not interfered with. 9. In all other respects, the impugned judgment shall stand confirmed. 10. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 14th December, 2010 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1178 of 2005 DATE: 14.12.2010 Between : Magam Venkateshwarlu and another … Petitioners/ Accused 1& 2 and State of A.P. ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1178 of 2005 (Disposed of) 14th December, 2010 cbs