In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 579 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: April 30, 2009 Sant Lal .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Praduman Yadav, DAG, Haryana. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 27.1.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 22.11.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 409 IPC. However, the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. In brief, the facts are that on 30.11.1990, Superintendent of Police, Hisar submitted a complaint alleging therein that the petitioner, who was posted as EDBPM, Sundawas, had received amount of Rs.20,360/-, as detailed in the FIR, but the same was not deposited by him in the Post Office. However, he made fictitious entries in the pass books. He had misappropriated the government money being a public servant. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a case was registered and investigated. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was charged for the offence under Section 409 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution led sufficient evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by him also failed, however, the sentence was reduced to one year. Arguments heard. Crl. Revision No. 579 of 2003 -2- *** At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction the learned counsel for the petitioner has harped for extending indulgence to the petitioner on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No irregularity much less illegality has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1990 and the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. He has already undergone about two months of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the extent that the same is reduced to six months without alteration in the sentence of fine. He would also deposit a sum of Rs.20,360/- with the Government, within three months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, for compliance. April 30, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge