The main legal point established is that the presence of the accused at the site of embezzlement and the withdrawal of funds under joint signature can establish criminal liability. Additionally, the court has the discretion to modify the sentence based on time served and impose an enhanced fine amount.

JUDGMENT :

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

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

3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 05.12.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2013 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sahebganj, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The appeal was filed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.08.2013 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Rajmahal in G.R. Case No. 61 of 2011 corresponding to T.R. No. 744 of 2013 whereby the petitioner was held guilty of offence under Sections 406/409 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. Further, for the offence under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments of the petitioner

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that from the perusal of the impugned judgments, it appears that the petitioner was head teacher-cum-secretary of the school and P.W. 2 was the chairman of Gram Shiksha Samiti. He further submits that it is apparent from the impugned judgments that an amount of Rs.5,40,000/- was allotted for the purposes of construction of the school building in which the petitioner was the head teacher-cum-secretary. An agreement was entered into between the government and the P.W. 2 who was the chairman of Gram Shiksha Samiti. The petitioner was never a signatory to the agreement.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from perusal of the judgment, it is also apparent that the amount was deposited in the bank account and the withdrawal could be made under joint signature of the petitioner and P.W. 2, but the petitioner has been made the sole accused in the case and has been made a scapegoat. The learned counsel submits that since the petitioner was not the signatory to the agreement, therefore, the petitioner has been wrongly made accused and convicted. He further submits that P.W. 2 ought to have been the accused, but was made a witness in this case and no steps were taken by the State against P.W. 2. The learned counsel submits that in such circumstances, it is not clear from the records as to whether the petitioner or P.W. 2 had embezzled the amount allocated for the construction of school building. It is submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period from 12.12.2011 onwards and was released on bail by an order of this Court vide order dated 10.01.2014 and a few days must have been taken for furnishing the bail bond. He submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than two years and one month and has faced the criminal case for about 10 years. Accordingly, he prays that some lenient view may be taken and the sentence of the petitioner be modified.

7. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already been asked to deposit fine amount of Rs. 10,000/- on each count and while modifying the sentence, if any, the fine amount may not be enhanced.

Arguments of the opposite party - State

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party – State , on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that though the agreement