A sentence must reflect the offender's history, particularly for first-time offenses, where a fine may suffice over imprisonment.

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the judgment dated 17.06.2025 in S.T.C.No.167/2025 (Petty Case Nos.12 of 2025 to 14 of 2025 of Mundlamuru Police Station) on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-Cum- Civil Judge (Junior Divison), Darsi convicting the Petitioner for the offence under Section 9(1) of the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974 (for brevity ‘the Act.,’) and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for one month along with the other accused (A1 and A3).

2. Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court imposed sentence without resorting to impose fine, as the Petitioner was indulged in commission of the offence at first time. The Petitioner admitted guilty before the learned Trial Court on the suggestion given by the Court constable concerned that if he pleads guilty he would be sentenced to fine only.

3. It is further submitted that there were no adverse antecedents against the Petitioner and imposition of sentence of one month imprisonment is highly disproportionate and unwarranted. A sentence of fine of Rs.300/- would have met the ends of justice and urged to dispose of the Revision Case.

4. Ms. P.Akhila, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that there are no adverse antecedents against the Petitioner, the learned Magistrate would have proportionately exercised the discretion in imposing sentence of fine instead of sentence of imprisonment.

5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the judgment in S.T.C.No.167 of 2025 dated

17.06.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class- Cum-Civil Judge (Junior Divison), Darsi, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?”

7. As seen from the record, the Petitioner and other Accused were found indulged in commission of offence under Section 9(1) of ‘the Act.,’ by playing gambling called Kothamukka by betting money. The Petitioner and other Accused were produced before the learned Magistrate before whom they pleaded guilty. The learned Magistrate observed that the confession of the Petitioner and other Accused was free and voluntary. While sentencing the Petitioner, the learned Magistrate has not recorded any aggravated circumstances exist against the Petitioner. It is not mentioned that the Petitioner had indulged in a similar offence on earlier occasion. The Petitioner is aged about 32 years and is doing business. There is no reference in the impugned judgment about the antecedents prevalent against the Petitioner.

8. Section 9(1) of ‘the Act.,’ empowers the learned Trial Court to impose a sentence of three months imprisonment or fine which may extend to Rs.300/-

or both.

9. In view of absence of adverse antecedents against the Petitioner, the imposition of sentence of one month imprisonment is highly disproportionate and it would have been confined to sentence of fine of Rs.300/-.

10. For the above reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 9(1) of ‘the Act.,’ while setting aside the sentence of imprisonment of one month and imposing fine of Rs.300/- on the Petitioner. The fine amount shall be paid with a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the learned Trial Court, failing which the Petitioner shall suffer 15 days rigorous imprisonment.

11. The Judicial Magistra