Judgment · High Court

petitioner/accused by the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram vide judgment dated 06.12.2004 C.C.No.343 of 2001, was confirmed.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused was running vegetable business in the Sandy of Wednesday Market, Bhimavaram and as the compound wall of the said Market caused obstruction to him for running the business, he demolished the compound wall in an extent of 15 X 6 feet on the midnight of

19.02.2001 and thereby caused loss of Rs.6,000/-to the public property. On receipt of a report from P.W.2-Municipal Commissioner, a case in Cr.No.35 of 2001 under Section 427 IPC and under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short ‘the Act’) was registered against the accused. After completion of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram I Town Police Station filed the charge sheet.

During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No evidence was adduced and no document was marked on behalf of defence.

The learned Magistrate after taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses, found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 3 of the Act and thereby convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner/accused filed Crl.A.No.231 of 2004 and the lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused filed the present revision.

Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but having regard to the the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a substantial period, a lenient view may be taken insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned.

From the record, it appears that the petitioner was in jail for a substantial period. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgments impugned. But however, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a considerable period and also the lapse of 11 years from the date of occurrence, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court is reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed by the said Court.

With the aforesaid modification, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed. 6th December, 2012 __________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO