Honble GARG, J.–This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 25.4.88, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment and order dated 25.4.84 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rai Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 476/80 whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Sec. 408 I.P.C. and sentenced him as under:-

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION SENTENCE AWARDED

408 I.P.C. 18 Months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 4000/- in default to further undergo 9 months R.I.

(2). It arises in the following circumstances:

(i) On 22.3.78, P.W. 9 V.V. Dixit Executive Officer, Sri Ganganagar Central Sahkari Bank Ltd. Lodged a written report Ex.P/12 before Police Station Gajsinghpur to the effect that in the year 1974-75 and from 1.7.75 to 19.4.76, special audit was done by P.W. 7 K.N. Joshi and it was found that the present accused petitioner misappropriated Rs. 3150/- on 4.8.75 and that amount was taken by the accused petitioner in the capacity as Manager of the Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti and the amount was deposited by two persons, namely Karnail Singh P.W. 1 and Kishan Singh. The audit report is Ex.P/10.

(3). On the report Ex.P 12 the police chalked out regular FIR and started investigation.

(4). The accused petitioner was arrested on 26.7.78 through Fard Ex.P/15 and after usual investigation, a challan for offence under Sec. 408 I.P.C. was filed against the accused petitioner.

(5). That on 8.7.81, the learned trial Magistrate framed charge for offence under Sec. 408 I.P.C. against the accused petitioner who denied the same and claimed trial.

(6). After conclusion of the trial the learned trial Magistrate through his judgment and order dated 25.4.84 convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Sec. 408 I.P.C. and sentenced him as stated above.

(7). Against the judgment and order dated 25.4.84 passed by the learned Magistrate, the accused petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rai Singh Nagar and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar vide judgment dt. 25.4.88 dismissed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner.

(8). Aggrieved from the judgment dated 25.4.88, the present revision petition has been filed.

(9). In this revision petition the learned counsel for the accused petitioner has not challenged the findings of conviction for offence u/Sec. 408 I.P.C. recorded against the accused petitioner by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but it has been argued on behalf of the accused petitioner that looking to the fact that the accused petitioner has remained in jail in the present case from the period from 26.7.78 to 31.7.78 and 25.4.88 to 22.7.88 and service of the petitioner had been terminated by the Samiti, and further more the incident took place in the year 1975 and more than 25 years have elapsed therefore, it would be just and proper that the accused petitioner should be given benefit under Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

(10). I have heard both and gone through the record of the case.

(11). Singh the findings of conviction for offence u/Sec. 408 I.P.C. recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rai Singh Nagar and affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Rai Singh Nagar against the accused petitioner have not been challenged in this revision petition, there, this revision petition against the conviction is liable to the dismissed.

(12). There is no dispute in this case that the amount for which charge of misappropriation was levelled against the accused petitioner was of Rs. 3150/-. This amount itself is meagre amount and for that the accused petitioner had remained in PC/JC for more than 5 months and looking to the fact that the services of the petitioner had already b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document