- (1.) J. C. Misra, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 7-7-83 passed by Sessions Judge, Bareilly dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 19-5-83 passed by the Munsif Magistrate-VIII, Bareilly convicting the revisionist under Section 467, I. P. C. and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 2 1/2 years and to a fine of Rs. 500. The revisionist Dr. M. M. Kadri had according to the prosecution identified the co-ac cused Rajendra Singh who had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1,150 from the post office Saving Bank Account No. 870281. Both the Courts below believed the prosecution case and held that the accused Rajendra Singh had withdrawn the amount. It was also held that the revisionist Dr. Kadri had identified Rajendra Singh who had withdrawn the amount representing him self to be account-holder Laxmi Narain. The revisionist Parsadi had affixed his thumb-mark as identifying witness.
(2.) THE prosecution adduced expert evidence and established that the account-holder Laxmi Narain had not affixed his thumb- impression. It was established that the revisionist Parsadi and Dr. Kadri had identified the person who had submitted withdrawal form. In view of this clinching evidence the Court below rightly held that the prosecution case was proved to the hilt. THE finding does not suffer from any error. Both revisionist Rajendra and Par sadi absconded and all attempts to secure their attendance to prove futile. The report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti dated 9-8-99 reveals that the non-bailable warrant of arrest could not be executed against them and, therefore, proceedings under Sections 82 and 83, Cr. PC. were started. The Chief Judicial Magistrate's report dated 11-10-99 reveals that the properties of the revisionist were attached. On 25-8-99 Sri R. C. Kundpal stated that the revisionist are ready and willing to surrender in Court. Despite this statement neither of the revisionist sur rendered on 9-9-99 Sri K. C. Kandpal stated in the Court that he has not received any information whether they have surrendered or not. In view of this statement the Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to issue non- bailable warrant of arrest of the revisionist and also to in itiate proceedings under Sections 82 and 83, Cr. PC. as stated before the Chief Judi-cial Magistrate has reported that despite attachment of the property of the revisionists they could not be arrested. Sri R. C. Kandpal, the learned counsel for the revisionist has pressed this revision on the question of sentence only. He stated that the offence was committed long before in the year 1971 and the revision filed by the accused is pending since 1983. He also contended that in view of the old age of the accused and delay in the disposal of the revision the accused should not be sent to jail.
(3.) IT is true that the circumstance of the case warrant that the sentence of im prisonment may be altered to sentence of fine which would meet ends of justice. However, since the revisionists are absconding and the learned counsel ap peared to press the revision after all the attempts to secure their arrest proved futile. They did not surrender despite the statement made by the learned Counsel in the Court. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that sentence of imprisonment for two months and to fine would meet ends of justice.;