Gyanendra Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS revision by the State against the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge Bijnor dated 14 -9 -1967 has been filed in the following circumstances.
(2.) BABU Ram opposite party was the Cashier of the Block Development Office Najibabad, district Bijnor. The charge against him was that he had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of three sums of money amounting to Rs. 573.95 p., 754.46 p. and 1236.26 p. on 26 -10 -1964, 8 -2 -1965 and 20 -2 -1965 respectively, which were entrusted to him. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge and stated that he had already deposited the total sum of Rs. 2564.67 p. in the office of the Block Development Officer on 9 -1 -1965 against a receipt. The State Counsel admitted that the accused had so deposited the amount. Accordingly, on his own admission, the accused was, convicted of an offence Under Section 409 IPC. However, the trial Court only admonished the accused and warned him to be of good conduct in future in view of the following considerations: (a) That the accused had deposited the entire amount in response to the notice given to him by the District Agricultural Officer, on the very clay of its receipt, after selling his only residential house. It may be mentioned that the aforesaid notice was to the effect that if the accused failed to deposit the required amount, the matter shall be reported to the police. The requisite amount was deposited by the accused forthwith, yet the matter was reported to the police which was against the undertaking contained in the notice; (b) That the accused had spoken the truth and had admitted his mistake; and (c) That he was not a previous convict and was physically invalid.
(3.) THE learned State Counsel has invited our attention to the provisions of Section 562(1 -A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which lays down that it is only in a case in which a person is convicted of an offence under the IPC punishable with not more than two years imprisonment and no previous conviction is proved against him that the Court may, having regard to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender and to the trivial nature of the offence or any extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed, instead of sentencing him to any punishment, release him after due admonition. The argument is that Under Section 409, IPC the offender is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years. That being so, it is an offence in which the benefit of Section 562(1 -A) Code of Criminal Procedure could not be given to the offender. The learned State Counsel, therefore, contends that the order of the trial Judge is illegal. That may be so. But in view of the totality of the circumstances enumerated above, we do not think it a fit case for interference in our revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the revision.;