ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. This criminal revision application has been filed against the Judgment dated 04.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the criminal appeal.

4. The learned trial court, vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence 30.03.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in G.R. No. 1674 of 1998/T.R. No. 544 of 2010 (arising out of Herla P.S. Case No. 129/1998 dated 16.12.1998), had convicted the petitioner under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month and had directed that the period of custody undergone during investigation and trial shall be set off from the period of sentence.

Submission on behalf of the petitioner:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been convicted only under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that the petitioner was working in a school and it was alleged that the petitioner had issued the receipts of fee collection from the various students which was to be prepared in triplicate and different amounts and details were mentioned in the receipts issued to the students as compared to what were mentioned in the corresponding two counter-foils of such receipts which were retained by the school authorities. He submitted that the petitioner has been made scapegoat. In support of his contention, he refers to the evidence of the defence witness who had stated that the entire collection was made by the informant of the case, who was the principal of the school, and the counter foils of the receipts were prepared subsequently under the dictates of the Principal (informant) who had maintained a chart indicating the receipts with respect to each of the students. The learned counsel further submitted that the defalcation, if any, has been made by the Principal (informant) of the school and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He also submitted that the entire responsibility of fee collection was that of the Principal and not of the petitioner. He submitted that the aforesaid aspects of the case have not been properly considered by the learned courts below and as such, the impugned judgments are perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case was instituted in the year 1998 and since then, 23 years have elapsed and the petitioner was convicted on 30.03.2010 when his age was 65 years and now, he is aged more than about 76 years of age and is also suffering from various ailments. He also submitted that the petitioner was ultimately terminated from his services. He also submitted that the petitioner had remained in jail custody from 05.02.1999 to 29.10.1999 during trial and also from 03.12.2012 to at least 13.12.2012 when he was granted bail by this Court during the pendency of the present criminal revision and some days must have been taken by him to furnish the bail bond and accordingly, the petitioner has already remained in jail custody for more than one year. The learned counsel submitted that considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case and also that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner, being aged about 76 years, again to jail at this stage of his life, the sentence of the petitioner may be modified and an appropriate order may be passed.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State:

7. The lea