- (1.) V. N. Mehrotra, J. This revision has been filed against the judgment dated 12-2-1982 by Sri O. P. Saxena, Sessions Judge, Agra, partly allowing the appeal filed by present revisionist but maintaining his conviction and sentence in respect of offence under Section 471, I. P. C.
(2.) THE facts of the case were that the present revisionist was employed as a driver in the U. P. S. R. TC. while co-accused Kitab Singh was employed as a conductor. THE services of the present revisionist were terminated on 9-5-1973. He moved an application ad dressed to the Chief Minister Uttar Pradesh praying that the authority concerned by directed to reinstate him. It is said that one M. L. A. had met the minister concerned of the department in this connection. THE Minister concerned made an endorsement on the application. THE application was then brought to the authority concerned. THE authority concerned became suspicious on seeing the endorsement on the application and thought that some interpolation has been made. THE fact was confirmed from the Minister con cerned. THEre after the F. I. R. was lodged and the matter was investigated by C. B. C. I. D. It was found that interpolated portion of the endorsement was in the handwriting of co-ac cused Kitab Singh. THE charge-sheet was filed against both the accused persons. THEy were tried by the Judicial Magistrate City I, Agra who convicted both of them for the offences under Section 420/511/465/468/471, I. P. C. THE sentence imposed in respect of offence under Section 468, I. P. C. was two years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- THE same sentence was imposed, under Section 420/511, I. P. C. and udner Section 465, I. P. C. sentence of one year R. I. was imposed, while for the offence under Section 471, I. P. C. the sentence of one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500a was imposed. Both the accused persons filed separate appeals. The appeals were heard separate ly. The appeal by accused Kitab Singh was earlier allowed and he was acquitted of all the offences charged. The appeal filed by appellants Salim Ahmad was separately heard. His conviction and sentence for the offences under Section 420/511/465, I. P. C. was set aside but the conviction and sentence under Section 471, I. P. C. was upheld. In this revision, the judgment by the Sessions Judge, Agra has been challenged. During the arguments Sri Tej Pal, Counsel for the revisionist Salim Ahmad, did not press the revision merits but has prayed that considering the fact that the matter is pending for the last more than 16 years and the revisionist has already lost his service, a lenient view as regards the sentence under Section 471, I. P. C. may be taken.
(3.) I have considered the arguments by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A. for the State. I have also perused the record of the case. This matter is pending for the last more than 16 years. The record of the case also shows that the revisionist was dismissed from service and has not been taken back. Further, co-accused Kitab Singh, who allegedly interpolated the writing in the endorsement made by the Minister concerned, was held not guilty and was set free by the appellate Court. Consider ing the facts and circumstances, a lenient view in respect of sentence for the offence under Section 471, I. P. C. may be taken in this case. The revision is allowed to the extent that while maintaining the conviction of accused-revisionist Salim Ahmad for the offence under Section 471, I. P. C. his sentence is reduced to that already undergone by him. The sentence regarding the payment of fine and in default to undergo R. I. for six months is maintained. The revisionist is allowed to pay the fine within one month for the date of this judgment. Partly allowed. .;