HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.343 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Siddipet, Medak District, in Crl.A.No.106 of 2001 dated 20.01.2004, confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C., imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet, in C.C.No.20 of 1999 dated 31.05.2002. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15.03.1998 at 3.00 A.M. the lorry bearing No.AP 10-T/6853 while returning with sand load from Karimnagar to Hyderabad and when reached Nagulabanda, the revision petitioner-accused took a sudden cut resulting in falling down of D.Yadagiri, the labourer sitting on the sand load, who died on the spot. The accused was tried for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. On a complaint given by PW.1, an eye-witness to the incident, the Sub Inspector of Police, Siddipet Police Station (Rural) registered a case in Crime No.52 of 1998. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.20 of 1999 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2 to prove the guilt of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the revision petitioner-accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner-accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Siddipet, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-accused preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference and submitted that the petitioner was taken into custody on the date of dismissal of the appeal, i.e. 20.01.2004, and since then he was in jail till he was granted bail by this Court on 27.02.2004 and, therefore, requests that a lenient view may be taken by this Court. From the record, it is clear that the Criminal Appeal was dismissed on 20.01.2004 and, immediately, the petitioner was taken into custody. As the alleged offence took place in the year 1998 and the petitioner was in jail for more than one month, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken by reducing the sentence to that of the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet, in C.C.No.20 of 1999 and as affirmed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Siddipet, in Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2002, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C., is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him. The revision petitioner-accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other crime. Except the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date:07.12.2010 usd