KANTA BHATNAGAR, J. - (1.) PETITIONER Sajjan Singh was tried for the charges under Sections 409, 468 and 471, IPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer vide judgment dated 23rd of April, 1977. The learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioner for the charge under section 409, IPC but held him guilty for the remaining charges i. e. 468 and 471, IPC and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment under each count and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment on each count. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra upheld the conviction but in view of the facts and circumstances of the case reduced the substantive sentence to two months' rigorous imprisonment each and the amount of fine was also reduced to Rs. 250/- on each count with an order that in default of payment of fine, he will suffer one month's simple imprisonment on each count. The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court against the findings of the two courts below.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press the petition on merits but prays for lenient view being taken in the matter and the petitioner may not be sent to jail now after the lapse of so many years. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that though the petitioner was not held guilty for embezzlement of the amount and the learned appellate Judge held R. C. Garg responsible for all the affair but in view of the fact that Sajjan Singh has helped R. C. Garg in his malign act, no further leniency is required. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the observations made by the two courts, especially the appellate court, to the effect that R. C. Garg was the main person connected with the allegations but he was not prosecuted, rather chargesheet had been filed against two persons viz. co-accused Bal Singh and the present petitioner Sajjan Singh who were not at all concerned with the embezzlement of the amount. From the perusal of the judgment of the two courts below it is evident that the trial Judge as well as appellate Judge were of the opinion that the petitioner was in no way concerned with the embezzlement of the amount of Rs. 1238. 30 and by appending signatures in the muster roll he had only helped R. C. Garg to facilitate devouring of money. The plea of co-accused Bal Singh that whatever he had written was at the instructions of Sajjan Singh, Mistry, was believed by the learned trial Judge. The plea of the petitioner that he was working under R. C. Garg and written whatever was directed was however not believed by the two courts on the ground that though R. C. Garg was main culprit, though not prosecuted, Sajjan Singh has helped him in committing the crime. In view of the specific observations of the learned appellate Judge in this regard i. e. the role of R. C. Garg, Overseer, and Sajjan Singh, petitioner, not gaining anything thereby and acting at the direction of R. C. Garg to help him in his effort to make wrongful gain to himself, I feel inclined to take a still lenient view in the matter. In view of the observations of the learned Sessions Judge, referred to above, I do not consider it proper to send the petitioner in jail after the lapse of so many years. The period of offence relates to 16. 3. 69 to 31. 3. 69. The petitioner faced trial upto 23rd of April, 1977 i. e. about 8 years. The appeal took about two years. The age of the petitioner in the year 1977 as stated in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. was 28 years that shows that at the time of the commission of the crime he was only 20 or 21 years of age. The petitioner has remained in custody for 12 days. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, I am of the opinion that it would not be proper to send the petitioner to jail now and ends of justice would meet if the substantive sentence of two months on each count is reduced to the period petitioner had remained in custody so far.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the revision petition is partly allowed. The substantive sentences of two months' rigorous imprisonment for the charges under Sections 468 and 471 IPC each is reduced to the period petitioner has remained in custody so far. The sentence of fine of Rs. 250/- in default to undergo one months' simple imprisonment each for the two charges under Sections 468 and 471 IPC is, however, maintained. The petitioner is allowed two months, time to deposit the amount of fine in trial court, as prayed by his learned counsel. .;