- (1.) S. K. Agarwal, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) THIS revision is being disposed of finally al the admission stage only on the quantum of sentence. The applicant was convicted under Sections 409, 467, 477/477-A, I. P. C. by the trial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, awarding him sentences under Section 409, I. P. C. for four years' R. I. and imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, under Section 467 for three years' R. I. imposing a fine of Rs. l. 000/- and under Section 477/477- A for two years' R. I. im posing a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. In default of payment of fines, so imposed, the applicant was to undergo R. I. for two years and six months respectively under the aforesaid Sections. Out of the fine imposed, the amount embezzled, i. e.) Rs. 5250/-, was directed to be paid to the col lege of which the: applicant was an employee. It is astonishing that the trial Court instead of making these sentences concur rent has made the sentences lo undergo one after the other. The appeal preferred by the ap plicant resulted into some modification in the sentences. The learned Special Judge (S. C. & S. T. Act), Kanpur Nagar, modified the sentences to two years' R. I. under Sec tion 409, one year's R. I. under Section 467 and another one year's R. I. under Section 477 and 477-A, I. P. C. In default of payment of fine the sentences awarded by the trial Court have also been modified. He further made the sentences to run concurrently. Amount of fines remained un interfered.
(3.) NOW few facts are necessary for appreciation of the case of the applicant. The amount embezzled by the applicant during his tenure from August, 1970 to 16th March, 1974 is a sum of Rs. 5,250/ -. The F. I. R. in the case was lodged against the applicant in 1974. The charge-sheet in the case was submitted on 20- 3-1983 by the police after a prolonged investigation, i. e. nine years after the registration of the case. The trial before the Court below had resulted into conviction of the applicant on 16- 5-1991. The appeal had come to the decision by the Court of Special Judge on 4-6-1999. It has also taken 8 years to decide the appeal. The circumstances appearing on record, thus, are speaking for themselves. The offence committed by the ap plicant, no doubt, is though trivial, but in the circumstances that he was holding the charge of Cashier of a college, a public institution its gravity cannot be seen mini mally. However, taking into consideration the present age of the applicant as 70 years as also his health, as disclosed in paragraph No. 8 of the affidavit, Le.) suffering from Asthma and has still the liability of one daughter, who has not yet been married, the case of applicant calls for some lenient approach by this Court.;