- (1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8-3-83 passed by Sessions Judge, Meerut dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 19-5-82 passed by Munsif Magistrate Court No. 2 Baghpat convicting the accused under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, and sen tencing him to undergo RI respectively for six months and four months.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the revision the parties came to terms and filed compromise which was duly verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It has not been disputed that offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, is not compoundable if the amount involved exceeds Rs. 250. In this case the amount involved is Rs. 500. So far as offence under Section 406 IPC, is concerned it is compoundable. On consideration of the entire facts and cir cumstances, I find it a fit case to accord permission to compound the case under Section 406, IPC. The learned Counsel for the revisionist without challenging the convic tion under Section 420 IPC, contended that the offence have taken place long before in the year 1978 and after such a long time the ends of justice do not require to send the accused to jail, more so when the parties have come to terms and filed compromise.
(3.) ON consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that sentence of fine would meet the ends of justice. The revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the revisionist under Section 406 IPC and sentence awarded arrest aside. The conviction of the revisionist under Section 420, IPC is maintained. The sentence of imprisonment is modified to sentence of imprisonment already undergone and to fine of Rs. 1500. In default of pay ment of fine the revisionist shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Revision partly allowed. .;