HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.710 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioners herein were tried by the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali in C.C.No.139 of 2000 for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-4, besides marking M.Os.1 to 4. On behalf of the defence, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence by his judgment, dated 21.06.2002, found the petitioners guilty of the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the said offence. The said judgment was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No.272 of 2002 and the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, who concurring with the findings of the trial Court, dismissed the said appeal. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court having filed this Revision. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: - P.W-1 was running goldsmith shop in Chundurvali street, Tenali. While so, on 02.04.2000 and on 03.04.2000, P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 gave gold ingots to P.W-1 for preparing ornaments along with the weightment slips. On 05.04.2000, at about 10 am., P.W-1 opened his shop and found that some unknown offenders committed theft of his cash bag containing five gold ingots and lodged a report with the Police Station, which was registered as a case in Crime No.65 of 2000 on the file of Tenali Urban Circle Police Station. During the course of investigation, the accused were arrested and the stolen property was seized from their possession and after the completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Sri C.Upendra, learned counsel representing Sri E.V.Bhagiratha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the Courts below did not consider the evidence on record from proper perspective and prayed to allow the appeal setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioners-accused. I have gone through the record. Basing upon sound reasoning, both the Courts below upheld the prosecution case and there is nothing to interfere with the same. However, the petitioners might have been suffering since a long time because of pendency of the criminal case and also because of attending before various Courts wasting their valuable time. Hence, I feel it reasonable to reduce the sentence of simple imprisonment imposed against the petitioners from one year to six months each, while confirming the findings recorded by both the Courts below. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from one year to six months, while keeping intact the fine clause. _____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 16th June, 2011 DR