IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.690 of 2003 Date of Decision 11.03.2010 Sant Ram ...... Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent(s) Criminal Revision No.735 of 2003 Rameshwar Dass ...... Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Rahul Vats, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): The aforesaid two Criminal Revision Nos.690 & 735 of 2003 , having arisen out of the judgment dated 11.03.2003, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat, dismissing the appeals of the petitioners-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioners'), against the judgment dated 19.03.2001, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, convicting and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC each, are being disposed of by a common judgment. The allegations against the petitioners are that they had embezzled a sum of Rs.9180.80 by playing fraud and cheated the staff of Cooperative Bank, Kharkhoda. They were charged, tried and ultimately convicted and sentenced accordingly. Their appeals also failed. Heard. On scrutiny of the impugned judgment, the evidence, as examined by the prosecution, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less perversity was found or detected which may render the judgment as invalid, therefore, the findings of fact returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. The amount, stated to have been embezzled is to the tune of Rs.9180/- whereas it is recorded in para No.12 of the trial Court judgment Criminal Revision No.690 of 2003 -2- that the accused had deposited a sum of Rs.18,361/- i.e. double of the embezzled amount. No bad antecedents have been brought on record to prove that the petitioners, prior to this commission of offence or thereafter, committed any other offence. Now the petitioners have already lost their jobs. The occurrence had taken place way back in the year 1987 and they have already suffered a lot on account of protracted proceedings. They have already undergone more than 4½ months of the substantive sentence. Under the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the sentence awarded to the petitioners needs to be modified by extending benefit of probation. Resultantly, the aforesaid two petitions are dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the effect that they be released on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1956 on their executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, for a period of one year within which period they shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bonds, they will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 11.03.2010 mamta-II