K.S. Jhaveri, J. - (1.)HEARD learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.R. Pujari for the appellant - State. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.R. Pujari states that the respondent - accused is absconding and is not available at the given address. However, considering the law on the issue as declared by this Court, the present Appeal is decided on merits.
(2.)BY way of these Appeals for enhancement, the Appellant - State has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.12.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khambaliya, District Jamnagar in Criminal Case No. 736/2008 and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.07.2011 of the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Khambaliya, Jamnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2011 whereby the accused therein were awarded the following sentence: -
Under Section 465 of the IPC

S.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default simple imprisonment for 10 days.

Under Section 467 of the IPC

Simple imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default simple imprisonment for 15 days.

Under Section 468 of the IPC

Simple imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default simple imprisonment for 10 days.

Under Section 471 of the IPC

Simple imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default simple imprisonment for 15 days.

Under Section 472 of the IPC

Simple imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default simple imprisonment for 15 days.

Under Section 417 of the IPC

Simple imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 200/ -, in default simple imprisonment for 5 days.

Under Section 419 of the IPC

Simple imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default simple imprisonment for 10 days.

Under Section 420 of the IPC

Simple imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, in default simple imprisonment for 15 days.
The case in brief is as under: -
3.1. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant is running the Agency for renting/leasing the trucks for bauxite of Ashapura Mines. During the period from 31.01.2008 to 06.02.2008, the accused with a view to fulfill their common intention forged the duplicate bills and receipt of the Royalty. By endorsing the round seal of the Mines and Mineral Department with the help of a colour printer on these receipts, though knowing that these receipts are forged, they allegedly used them as a genuine one. They also created a duplicate receipt in respect of the weigh -bridge and also created fraudulent record by use of electronic equipment. The accused No. 1 impersonating himself as one - Sameer Madam went to the complainant and presented the duplicate record for treating the same as genuine. Thereby, all the accused embezzled a sum of Rs. 6,59,690/ - and committed breach of trust and misappropriation. The accused No. 3 though was knowing that this amount has been obtained by his son by cheating, he retained this amount with him and thereby committed the above offences. Accordingly, an offence was registered before Khambaliya Police Station vide I -C.R. No. 29/2008 for the offences under Sections 464, 465, 467, 471, 472, 416, 417, 419, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and a charge -sheet was filed before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khambalia which was registered as Criminal Case No. 736/2008.

3.2. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khambaliya by his judgment and order dt. 29.12.2009 and convicted the original accused and one another for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 417, 419, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to suffer imprisonment and fine. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction, the original accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 11/2011 before the Court of the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Khambaliya and the learned Sessions Judge after hearing parties from both the sides modified the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khambhalia and ordered to suffer imprisonment for 2.5 years for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 472 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code instead of imprisonment for a period of three years for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 472 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and no modification in respect of fine was made.

3.3. At the time of the trial, the prosecution examined the following witnesses: -

3.4. The prosecution also relied upon various documentary evidence, some of them are: -

(3.)LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.R. Pujari has submitted that the learned Judge has erred in reducing the sentence from 3 years simple imprisonment to 2.5 years simple imprisonment for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 472 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate that so far offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it provides for life imprisonment or upto 10 years and fine, whereas qua the offence under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, it provides for sentence upto seven years and fine and similarly for the offence under Section 472 of the Indian Penal Code, it provides for life imprisonment or upto seven years has been prescribed. It is also submitted that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the gravity and seriousness of the offence and thereby has taken a lenient view while reducing the sentence. Considering the above, it is submitted that this is a fit case which requires interference of this Court and the judgment and order of the learned Judge be upturned.