JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Vishwanath Ray, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State.

3. This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.02.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2012 by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI, Ranchi whereby the order of conviction of the petitioner has been sustained by the learned appellate court.

4. The petitioner was convicted for offence under Sections 409, 420 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo-

Simple Imprisonment for two years and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for commission of offence under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code with default clause of further imprisonment for three months.

Simple Imprisonment for two years and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the postal department for commission of offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.

Simple Imprisonment for one year for commission of offence under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code.

All the aforesaid punishments and sentences were directed to run concurrently.

5. The learned appellate court, while sustaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 409/420 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code modified the sentence to a period of one year for the offence under Sections 409, 420 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and ordered payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- only to be paid to the postal department. The appellate court also directed that if the postal department has already paid the amount to the ultimate victim Mahendra Kumar and if the payment has not been made to Mahendra Kumar by the postal department, then the compensation amount may be paid to the ultimate victim, Mahendra Kumar.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that the petitioner has already deposited the compensation amount before the learned court below amounting to Rs. 40,000/-. However, he submits that this aspect of the matter has been submitted by him on instruction and it is for the learned court below to verify the said deposit.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner had opened the account of one Mahendra Kumar without taking any introducer for his account and ultimately, the cheque of the income tax department amounting to Rs. 24,950/- in the name of Mahendra Kumar was deposited, encashed through bank transaction and the money was withdrawn. Subsequently it was found that the actual person namely Mahendra Kumar had not opened the account in the post-office and had accordingly not withdrawn the amount. The learned counsel submits that at the time of First Information Report itself, the petitioner was suspended and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and ultimately vide order dated 21.03.2012, the Hon’ble President had ordered to drop the proceeding against the petitioner. It is submitted that the departmental proceeding based on same set of allegations having been dropped, the sentence of the petitioner be modified.

8. It is submitted that the age of the petitioner at the time of trial court judgment dated 19.12.2011 has been recorded as 69 years, but the petitioner had retired by attaining the age of 62 years from the postal department on 31.07.2004 and accordingly, his present age is about 80 years. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent and he has faced the rigorous of the criminal case right from the date of the First Information Report i.e. from 18.11.1995. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was arrested on 31.07.1998 and was released on bail on 16.04.1999 by the learned court below. Thereafter, the petitioner had surrendered during the pendency of the present case on 09.05.2012 and was directed