J.G.Chitre, J. - (1.)-The small point is to be decided in this revision petition and therefore on the request of counsel appearing for the litigating parties this revision petition is being decided finally at this stage.
(2.)The petitioner has been convicted by Chief Judicial Magistrate. Mandsaor for offence punishable under S. 409 IPC for alleged embezzlement of amount to the tune of Rs. 31,240=70 ps. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs 30,000/- as learned Magistrate found him guilty for offence u/s. 409 IPC. The petitioner preferred an appeal in the Sessions Court. Mandsaor challenging the correctness propriety and legality of that order of conviction and sentence. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner moved an application for suspension of sentence. Learned 3rd A.S.J. Mandsaor suspended the .substantive sentence; however he refused to suspend the sentence of fine and that order has been assailed by the petitioner in this revision petition.
(3.)Shri Jaisingh counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been suspended since 1981 and he is surviving on subsistence allowance alongwith his family members who are four in number. He further submitted that the children of the petitioner are grown up and they are studying and therefore, it is very difficult for the petitioner and impossible for him to deposit the amount of Rs. 30,000/- which has been directed to be deposited by him as fine. He submitted that when 3rd A.S.J. Mandsaor was pleased to suspend the substantive sentence he could have suspended the sentence of fine also. It is his prayer that the sentence of fine inflicted on the petitioner by the trial court be also suspended in the interest of justice keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is sorviving on subsistence allowance after his suspension.