1 S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.461/2008 DATE OF ORDER : 12.8.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr.Deepak Menaria, for the petitioner. Mr.O.P.Rathi, Public Prosecutor. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge (FT) No.3, Udaipur, Camp Salumbar, dated 1.5.2008, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the appellant and confirmed the judgment of the learned ACJM, Salumbar dt.14.9.07 whereby he has convicted & sentenced the accused petitioner Namit Sharma as under: U/sec.420 IPC : Seven years' S.I. & a fine of Rs.5000/- & in default, to further undergo one year's S.I. U/sec.467 IPC : Seven years' S.I. & a fine of Rs.5000/- & in default, to further undergo one year's S.I. U/sec.468 IPC : Seven years' S.I. & a fine of Rs.5000/- & in default, to further undergo one year's S.I. U/sec.406 IPC : Three years' S.I. & a fine of Rs.5000/- & in default, to further undergo six months' S.I. U/sec.471 IPC : Six months' S.I. & a fine of Rs.5000/- & in default, to further undergo one month's S.I. 2 U/sec.468 IPC : Seven years' S.I. & a fine of Rs.5000/- & in default, to further undergo one year's S.I. Accused petitioner was also convicted for the offence u/s 120B IPC but no separate sentence was passed. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The charge against the petitioner was that while he was working as revenue patwari, Patwar Division, Rishabhdev, he was required to hand over a Cheque being No.70411 drawn on SBBJ, Salumbar Branch amounting to Rs.9,68,775/- and another Cheque being No.358259 drawn on Rajasthan Bank, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur amounting to Rs.11,62,530/- to one Devendra s/o Mugla Meena as against the amount of the award but by introducing & identifying a fake person as Devendra Meena, he withdrew the said amounts by indulging in embezzlement. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to challenge the conviction but he simply submits that since the petitioner has already remained in police custody for the period from 16.7.03 to 21.7.03 & thereafter, in judicial custody for the period from 22.7.03 to 29.7.04 & from 23.9.04 to 1.6.06 and is behind the bars during appeal & thereafter since 14.9.07 till date, therefore, he may be sentenced to the period already 3 undergone. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgments of the courts below. Keeping in view all the facts & circumstances of the case, it seems that ends of justice will be met, if the accused is sentenced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner Namit Sharma u/ss.420, 467, 468, 406, 471, 468 & 120B IPC recorded by the ACJM, Salumbar vide his judgment dt.14.9.07 & confirmed by the Addl.Sessions Judge (FT) No.3, Udaipur vide his judgment dt.1.5.08, he is sentenced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine is maintained. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, on depositing of fine, else he will undergo the sentence in default of payment of fine. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. RANKAWAT JK, PS