IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. R. No. 2185 of 2002 Date of decision: 18.8.2010 Darshan Singh … Petitioner versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate, with Mr. Devinder Bir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. AG Punjab … ARVIND KUMAR, J: The petitioner was tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, under Section 408 IPC on the allegation that he while working as Manager in the Society, namely, The Tapa Co- operative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Limited, had committed an embezzlement of Rs.17,395.52P belonging to the Society, for his own use. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court held the petitioner guilty under Section 408 IPC and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. On appeal, the lower appellate Court upheld the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the present revision. At the time of hearing of this revision petition, the same was admitted to a hearing. Counsel for the petitioner obviously has confined his argument for the reduction of sentence mainly on the ground that the present petitioner is facing agony of protracted trial/appeal for the last 12 years. Further, it is stated that the petitioner has already deposited the embezzled amount of Rs.17395.52P. It was a solitary incident and there is nothing to Crl. R. No. 2185 of 2002 -2- suggest that the petitioner is a previous convict or repeated the offence after having been released on bail. The petitioner is stated to have already undergone sentence of about two months. Undisputedly, the present petitioner is facing the agony of protracted trial/appeal for the last 12 years and there is nothing to suggest of his repeating the offence. Moreso, as is apparent from the observations of the trial Court in para 10 of its judgment, the petitioner has since deposited the embezzled amount of Rs.17395.52P on 22.10.1997 vide Exhibit DX. Thus, the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if the sentence imposed upon the petitioner under Section 408 IPC is reduced. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained; however, the sentence of one year's simple imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner under Section 408 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine shall remain intact. With the above modification, the instant petition stands disposed of. August 18, 2010 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE