IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2193 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: September 20, 2011 Gurdev Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 8.7.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused petitioner Gurdev Singh (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 11.9.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, with the modification in the sentence which was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months and to pay fine of `500/- under Sections 409 IPC, whereas, the judgment of conviction and sentence qua the offences under Sections 467/468 IPC was set aside. The allegations in nutshell are that the accused while being posted as Cashier in the Electricity Board at Amritsar, received the amount of bills and issued forged receipt to the consumers but embezzled the amount of `28416/- and misappropriated the same. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the conviction and urged that the petitioner has already undergone more than two months of the substantive sentence and prayed for taking lenient view on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Sufficient evidence has been led by the prosecution in order to establish that after receiving the payments of the electricity bills from the public, he did not deposit the same with the office and issued forged receipts. The Appellate Court has rightly Crl. Revision No. 2193 of 2011 (O&M) -2- *** exercised its judicial discretion while reducing the sentence. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected warranting interference by this Court. As such, no exception to the opinion expressed by the courts below could be made at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1999; he has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him since then. Though, it would not be appropriate to wipe out the entire sentence, yet, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to one year without any alteration in the sentence of fine. September 20, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge