IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1728 of 2009 MURLIDHAR JHA son of Baldeo Jha, resident of Village Shyampur, P.S. Rajoun, Dist. Banka. …..Petitioner. ---------- Versus The State of Bihar. --------- For the petitioner : Mr. Kanhaiya Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr.Aal Bihari,Dr. Rajesh Kumar, Mrs. Jyotshna For the State Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, Advocate. ----------- 3 11.12.2009 Defalcation in capacity of Manager Biharpur Brihat Karya Bahudhandhandhi Sahyog Samiti was alleged which also after trial was found true and accordingly conviction recorded that is confirmed by the appellate court, legality correctness and propriety of both the concurrent find is challenged by filing this revision petition showing non-examination of the I.O., non-examination of audit authority, Magistrate, B.D.O. present while inventory was prepared. Even after pointing out the infirmities the learned counsel prefers to centralize himself on the point of sentence and for the same his submission is that defalcation if any was detected in the year 1976 for the same first information report was lodged on 7.2.1977 trial concluded and ended in conviction on 22.2.1994 and appeal confirming the conviction decided on 25.8.2009. Now the submission of the learned counsel is that all along the service petitioner remain suspended. Inquiry for the allegation is pending in administrative side and this revision is pending for admission after such a long ordial. Mainly it is stressed that the period undergone by the petitioner now could be observed sufficient towards his punishment as he remained in custody from 17.6.1977 to 17.8.1977. In course of trial and here before filing - 2 - of the revision he surrendered on 4.11.2009 and till today is in custody. Period taken in disposal of the case followed by petitioner retirement in the year 30.1.1998 and if he could be given benefit for Probation of Offenders Act 360 Cr.P.C. , I am also of the view that the period under gone by the petitioner should be observed sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly revision is allowed in part on the point of sentence that is modified and minimized to the period already undergone while the conviction is confirmed. Let the petitioner be released forth with if not wanted in any other case. Let the order be communicated to Shri A.,K. Tiwary, the then Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Naugachia (Bhagalpur) in G.R. case No. 44 of 1977, Tr. No. 181 of 1994, through fax at the cost of the petitioner. (Mandhata Singh, J) M.Rahman