In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 2811 of 2009 Date of decision: 25.1.2010 Rajpal ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.H.S.Beniwal, DAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner Rajpal was convicted for an offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), vide judgment dated 22.3.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Faridabad. Vide order of the even date the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.10.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “ Case of the prosecution is that a memo Criminal Revision No. 2811 of 2009 -2- No.116 dated 27.8.1996 was received in Police Post Tigaon from SDO 'OP' Haryana State Electricity Board Badrola for lodging the case against Rajpal LDC © for embezzlement of Government revenue during 8/95 to 3/06 and that memo was in continuation of earlier office memo No.489 dated 12.4.1996 and 948 dated 25.7.1996. Allegations against Rajpal LDC/C son of Gyasi Ram, resident of Atali are that he was posted in HSEB Badrola office as cashier and during posting, he issued bogus receipts to the consumers without making entry in relevant CCR and used money about Rs.14,000/- for himself. On that complaint, FIR was registered against the accused. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Record of the department was taken into police possession. The accused deposited the embezzled amount of Rs.18,321/- with the department on 23.12.1996. The accused was arrested and was produced in the Court. The accused refused to furnish his specimen signatures. On completion of investigation, challan was filed in the court for trial of the accused.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has submitted that the petitioner is suffering from cancer. He had put in thirty years of service. The amount in question had already been deposited. The petitioner has two minor children to Criminal Revision No. 2811 of 2009 -3- look after. Learned counsel has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to as already undergone by him. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is liable to be reduced to as already undergone by him Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under Section 409 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to as already undergone by him. Fine is stated to have already been deposited. The said fact is evident from the order of sentence passed by the trial Court. The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE January 25, 2010 anita