IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 93 of 1995 Date of Decision : May 13, 2010 Pargat Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. M.S.Bedi, Advocate Mr. P.S.Grewal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner was tried by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patti, for an offence under Section 408 IPC on the ground that while working as Secretary, Cooperative Agricultural Service Society, Marri Megha, he criminally misappropriated a sum of Rs.26,163.60 Ps. Vide judgment and order dated 30.7.1992 the trial Court convicted him for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The fine imposed was deposited by the petitioner there and then. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 27.1.1995 except for modification in the sentence by Crl. Revision No. 93 of 1995 -2- reducing the imprisonment from one year to nine months. He then filed the present revision in which he was granted the concession of bail vide order dated 31.3.1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner. Instead, he has stated that the petitioner was said to have misappropriated the aforementioned amount in the year 1982-83. It has also come on the record that some of the amounts out of the aforementioned amount have already been deposited by the petitioner as is clear from para 9 of the judgment passed by the lower appellate Court. The petitioner has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1986 when FIR was registered against him. At the time of his conviction by the trial Court in the year 1992, he was 43 years of age. At present he is in his early sixties. Moreover, out of the sentence of nine months imposed upon him, he has already undergone a period of about three months. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars so as to undergo the remainder of his sentence of imprisonment. Prayer has, thus, been made for reducing the sentence to that already undergone by the petitioner. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the amount misappropriated by the petitioner was quite large and, therefore, no leniency be shown to him in the matter of sentence. Crl. Revision No. 93 of 1995 -3- As is apparent from the custody certificate produced by learned State counsel today in the Court, the petitioner remained in jail as an undertrial for fifteen days and as a convict for two months and five days. In all, he has undergone two months and twenty days. The trial of the case lasted for six years. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence was decided about three years later. The present revision has remained pending in this Court for the last more than 15 years. As mentioned in para 9 of the judgment passed by the lower appellate Court, the petitioner has already deposited some of the amounts, which he had misappropriated earlier. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, for undergoing his remaining sentence of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be squarely met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 408 IPC is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. However, the amount of fine of Rs.1,000/- is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, which be deposited by the petitioner with the trial Court within three months from today, failing which he shall be required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. Crl. Revision No. 93 of 1995 -4- ( T.P.S.MANN ) May 13, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1