Criminal Revision No. 1293 of 2001 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1293 of 2001 Date of Decision: 25.2.2009 Jai Parkash …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Jai Parkash was nominated as accused in case FIR No. 71 dated 9.7.1989 registered at Police Station Siwani, under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 IPC. The case against the petitioner was that he was posted as Secretary of Co-operative Credit and Services Society Limited, Khera which fall in village Loharu and during course of his employment he had embezzled funds of the Society. It was stated that from the purchase and sale of sugar for the period commencing from 1982 to 1986, petitioner had embezzled Rs.4,976.05 ps. and had not accounted for the same. For the same period, cash amount to the tune of Rs.7,177/- had been also embezzled and petitioner had also not accounted for other Criminal Revision No. 1293 of 2001 2 stocks. Total embezzlement of the Society funds on the part of petitioner detected was Rs.22,970.90 ps. Prosecution examined 48 witnesses. Trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed offence under Sections 409, 468 and 471 IPC. For all these offences, petitioner was awarded two years rigorous imprisonment and the fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 409 IPC, in default of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The appeal was decided by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, who came to the conclusion that no offence under Sections 468 & 471 IPC is made out and petitioner has committed an offence under Section 408 IPC and not under Section 409 IPC. However, the petitioner was convicted under Section 408 IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that in the present case FIR was registered in the year 1989. Petitioner has suffered a protracted trial of about 20 years. It has been further prayed that in the last 20 years, petitioner has grown old and has fastened himself with many responsibilities of the family. His children are of marriageable age. Counsel has further urged before this Court that in the last 20 years, petitioner has committed no offence, therefore, protracted trial, age and the antecedents be taken into consideration for reduction in sentence. I find merit in this submission made by counsel for the petitioner. Criminal Revision No. 1293 of 2001 3 Accordingly, sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced from two years to six months rigorous imprisonment, however, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. The amount of fine shall be deposited within three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. Non-deposit of enhanced amount of fine will disentitle the petitioner from any relief in reduction in the sentence and the petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 25, 2009 “DK”