The court considered the petitioner's age and the lengthy duration of the case in modifying the sentence, balancing the need for justice with the petitioner's circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

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

2. Heard Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. The present revision application has been filed challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment dated 3rd March, 2012 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge-XIII, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No. 27/2003, whereby the learned appellate court has affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22nd February, 2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in G.R. Case No. 3389/1985, T.R. No. 02/2003.

4. The learned trial court has convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of 9 months.

Submission of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that he would confine his arguments on the point of sentence. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and the present age of the petitioner is about 72 years. The petitioner has duly retired from the services of post office in the year 2010. The learned counsel further submits that the present case is of the year 1985 and the petitioner was convicted in the year 2003. The appeal also remained pending for a long time for no fault on his part and this revision which was filed in the year 2012 has ultimately come up for final hearing in the year 2021. He submits that the petitioner has faced the rigors of criminal case for long 36 years and he is at the fag end of his life at the age of about 72 years. He submits that the petitioner has also remained in custody for a considerable time at the stage of trial and also during the pendency of this revision petition, then he surrendered on 09.05.2012 and was directed to be enlarged on bail on 15.06.2012 and a few days must have been taken by him to furnish the bail bond. He submits that custody of the petitioner is more than four months in connection with the present case.

6. The learned counsel has further submitted that a supplementary-affidavit has been filed in the present case bringing on record the order passed in the departmental proceeding, whereby the petitioner was punished vide order contained in Memo No. F-3-1/ 85-86 dated 21.07.2008 and penal recovery was made. He submits that the facts of the present case would reveal that the case is of temporary embezzlement, in as much as, certain deposits in the account were not reflecting in the records of the post office. He submits that considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the present age of the petitioner, some sympathetic view may be taken and sentence be modified and certain fine amount be enhanced.

Submissions of the opposite party-State

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State, on the other hand, has submitted that both the learned courts below have given concurrent findings with regard to offence committed by the petitioner and there is no scope for interference in revisional jurisdiction, so far as conviction of the petitioner is concerned. He submits that there is no illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the impugned judgments of conviction. He further submits that the petitioner has been dealing with money of the post office.

8. The learned counsel, while advancing his argument on the point of sentence, does not dispute that the petitioner is about 72 years of age and the case was instituted as back as in the year 1985 and that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent. He submits that in case, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioner, some fine amount may be enhanced, even if, the penal recovery has been made by the department. He