The judgment established the principle that the court must consider the applicability of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. and the circumstances of the offender, emphasizing the reformative aspect of criminal law.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral) - By way of present revision petition, challenge has been made to the judgment dated 09.10.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, followed by an order of sentence dated 27.09.2004. Relevant portion therein is reproduced herein:

'.........Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the convicts are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- each under Section 409 IPC and default of payment, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months each and are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- each under Section 420 IPC and in default of payment, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months each and are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- each under Section 467 IPC and in default of payment, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months each and are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.2,000/-each under Section 467 IPC and in default of payment, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months each and are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- each under Section 468 IPC and in default of payment, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months each and are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- each under section 471 IPC and in default of payment, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months each and are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-each under Section 120-B IPC and default of payment, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each......."

2. Briefly stating facts of the case are that as per allegations levelled by the prosecution against the petitioner, he along with one Uday Kumar Kakkar while posted as Clerk-cum- Cashier with the Haryana Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Sampla, misappropriated certain amount of the depositors by not making correct entries in the cash book register and thereby, caused financial loss of Rs.2,41,200/- to the Bank w.e.f. September, 1994 to November 1995 resulting into registration of FIR No.52 dated 14.02.1996 at Police Station, Sampla under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/120-B of Indian Penal Code.

3. Based thereupon, the petitioner as well as the co-accused Uday Kumar Kakkar were both charge-sheeted under Sections 409/420/467/468/461/120-B IPC. Upon trial, the petitioners and his coaccused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420,467,468,471, 120-B IPC vide judgment dated 24.09.2004 and were awarded sentence vide order dated 27.09.2004.

4. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2004 which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide judgment dated 09.10.2006, thereby upholding the judgment passed by the trial Court, resulting into filing of the present revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the entire amount of alleged embezzlement i.e. Rs. 2,41,200/- already stood deposited with the Bank, even prior to the registration of the FIR in question and the same even finds mentioned in the impugned judgment passed by the Courts below. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner remained employed as Clerk-cum-Casher at Sampla Branch only up to April, 1995 whereas, the total period of embezzlement as alleged by the prosecution has been w.e.f. September 1994 to November 1995. He also points out that there were only following three entries which relate to the petitioner even as per the case set up by the prosecution:

6. In addition, learned counsel for the p