- (1.) Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 26.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Tibbi vide judgment dated 25.02.2011 was affirmed. The petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 409 IPC and 467 IPC and sentenced to one year simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the Up Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Pirkamadiya to the Tehsildar, Tibbi to the effect that the petitioner who was posted as Postman at Post Office Pirkamadiya misappropriated the old age pension which was to be distributed to the Late Mukand Singh and Late Chhindi as money order. After preliminary investigation, the Assistant Superintendent, Post Office, Hanumangarh found the petitioner guilty of mis-appropriation and lodged a FIR by way of application with the Police Station, Tibbi against the petitioner for offence under Section 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The police after usual investigation, filed chargesheet against the petitioner for offence under Section 409, 467, 468 IPC. At the trial, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses in support of his case. The accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegation levelled against him and claimed trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 25.02.2011 convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 409 and 467 IPC and sentenced him as above. Being aggrieved of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh, who by his judgment dated 26.05.2016 upheld the conviction of the petitioner recorded by the learned trial Court, as aforesaid. Hence, this revision. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge his conviction for the offence noticed above. However, he has confined his arguments only to the point of quantum of sentence and submits that the disputed amount i.e. Rs. 2700 and Rs. 2300/-, which the petitioner allegedly misappropriated, was redeposited in the post office before the registration of the FIR as the petitioner was an employee of the Postal Department at the relevant point of time. It is submitted that at the time of registration of aforesaid case, he was 39 years old and looking to the huge interregnum between the date of incident till now and the fact that petitioner has already undergone three months of imprisonment, ends of justice would meet if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dayanand Ramkirshna Shet Vs. State of Karnataka, 2014 CrLR 554 and judgments of this Court in the case of Jag Jeevan Ram Garg Vs. State of Raj,2013 3 CrLR 1616 and Sona Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan,2016 3 CrLR 1436 .
(3.) Learned public prosecutor opposed the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the sentence awarded by the courts below cannot be said to be disproportionate. However, he does not dispute the fact that amount misappropriated has already been deposited by the petitioner in the post office. After perusing the judgment and order impugned and considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also the fact that petitioner has already under gone substantial period of sentence, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of accused-petitioner for offence under Section 409 & 467 IPC, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine of Rs. 500/- imposed by the learned court below for offences under Section 409 and 467 IPC shall stand increased to Rs. 1500/- each, upon same condition imposed by the learned trial court in case of default of payment of fine. The said amount of fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within a period of 90 days from the date of this judgment.;