IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CR.R No.220 of 2002 Date of decision : March 25, 2009 Bali Ram …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Banyal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J ( Oral ) This Revision Petition is directed against the conviction of the petitioner for offences, punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and the sentence of one year’s simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, for offence, under Sections 409 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/-, in respect of each of the other three offences, ordered by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.II, Una, and affirmed by the Sessions Court in appeal, vide judgment dated 24th June, 2002. 2. Revision petitioner was employed as Secretary, Cooperative Society, Arlu, in the year 1992, when he allegedly embezzled an amount of Rs.9,000/-, belonging to the said society and with a view to covering up the embezzlement, he forged some documents and used them as genuine, with intent to cheat the society. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. The only submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner is that in one more case of embezzlement, the revision petitioner has been convicted of offence, under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and that in that case the revision petitioner has been undergoing sentence since 26th November, 2008. Learned counsel says that in that case the amount of embezzlement was Rs.79,954.98. He says that in the present case, the allegedly embezzled amount was only Rs.9,000/- and the same had been paid long before the conviction of the revision petitioner, though after the registration of the case. So, he prays for reduction of sentence and also for an order that the sentence of this case may run concurrently with the sentence, in the other case, which the petitioner is presently undergoing. He has produced a copy of the judgment in the other case, which is attested by him. The same is taken on record. Its reading substantiates the aforesaid submission. 4. In view of the abovestated position, particularly the fact that the amount of embezzlement involved in the present case is only Rs.9,000/-, whereas the amount of embezzlement was Rs.79,000/- and odds in the other case, as also the fact that the embezzled amount had been refunded by the revision petitioner, I feel that the ends of justice would be met in case the sentence of substantive imprisonment of one year simple imprisonment awarded to the revision petitioner for offence, under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, is reduced to six months simple imprisonment or say equivalent to the sentence of …3… substantive imprisonment awarded in the other case, where the embezzled amount is much higher. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly accepted and the sentence of substantive imprisonment, under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, is reduced from one year simple imprisonment to six months simple imprisonment and to that extent the judgment of the trial Magistrate, dated 17th August, 2000, as affirmed by the Sessions Court vide judgment dated 24th June, 2002, is modified. 5. It is also ordered that the sentences of substantive imprisonment awarded in this case, i.e. six months simple imprisonment for each of the four offences, i.e. under Sections 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, shall run concurrently, both with each other and also with the sentence of six months substantive imprisonment awarded in the other case, particulars of which are as under: “Criminal Case No.: RBT 456-II-08/95 Date of Presentation: 30.03.1995 Date of decision: 24.11.2008. State Vs Beli Ram son of Chet Ram residents of Village Arlu, Tehsil Bangana, Distt. Una. F.I.R. No.2/93 dated 5.1.1993 P.S. Bangana Police challan under Section 409 IPC.” Revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. March 25, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J