THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1701 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 The petitioner and two others were tried by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in C.C.No.200 of 2000 for the offence punishable under section 394 of IPC. However, the trial court, after full fledged trial, acquitted the petitioner and others for the offence punishable under section 394 of IPC, but, however, found the petitioner herein guilty for the offence punishable under section 392 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The said judgment dated 28.04.2001 was questioned by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.192 of 2001 and the learned II Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by his judgment dated 30.10.2003 while confirming the said findings given by the trial court dismissed the said appeal. Hence the petitioner approached this court and filed the present revision. 2 Brief facts are that P.W.1 is resident of Plot No.205, Dwarakanivas, H.No.6-3-662/6, Jaffaralibagh, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. On 01.05.1998 at 12 noon when P.Ws.1 and 3 were in the house some body pressed the calling bell. When P.W.3 opened the door, the three accused persons entered the house holding ropes and knives. They closed the mouth of P.W.1 and took P.Ws.1 & 3 into their bed room and there they tied them with ropes and sarees and they also threatened her with knives. Thereafter they opened the almirah and took four gold bangles, two gold rings and two gold matties and cash of Rs.20,000/- and some silver articles and share certificates and left the house with the booty. At abut 12.15 p.m. when P.W.2 returned home A.1 and A.3 opened the door and brought him inside the room and by putting a knife on his neck tied him with rope. Thereafter P.W.1 went to the police station Panjagutta and lodged Ex.P.1 report, which was registered as a case in Cr.No.255 of 1998 and investigated into. During the course of investigation in Cr.No.214 of 1998 of Gandhinagar P.S, on 28.07.1998 P.W.8 herein apprehended the petitioner and another at 12.00 Noon at Chitra Durga R.P. Road, Secunderabad. On interrogation the petitioner confessed to show the part of the articles stolen from the house of the complainant in Cr.No.214 of 1998, and he had also shown some other properties involved in the present crime and some other crimes and all those articles were seized under the cover of panchanama reports drafted by panchas. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed. 3 Heard. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but requested this court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence imposed on the petitioner is concerned. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner in all had undergone a sentence of 5 months and 25 days both as an under trial prisoner and after dismissal of the appeal by the appellate court. But there is no material to establish the said fact. 5 However, as it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had already undergone a substantive sentence of 5 months and 25 days, though the same could not be demonstrated, this court is of the view that the said sentence of two years imposed by the courts below can be reduced to six months. If the petitioner had really undergone a sentence of 5 months and 25 days he shall be set at liberty forthwith. Excepting the above modification this revision in all other aspects is dismissed. 6 The petitioner herein was also tried in C.C.No.1469 of 1998 and was convicted for the same offence punishable under section 392 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and the said sentence was modified by the appellate court in its judgment dated 30.10.2003 in Criminal Appeal No.192 of 2001 wherein it was observed that the sentence imposed in the said case shall run concurrently with the sentence in the present case. Hence, it is made clear that the sentence imposed in this revision and the sentence imposed in Criminal Revision Case No.1700 of 2003 which was preferred against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.190 of 2001 of the very same appellate court shall run concurrently. -------------- 30.09.2010 Kvsn