IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2077 of 2003 Date of Decision 04.03.2010 Nasib Singh ...... Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.R.P.Dhir, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 24.09.2003, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 23.04.2001, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 409 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- under Section 465 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 468 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- under Section 471 IPC. Allegations against the petitioner are that he, while employed as Assistant in the Post Office, had committed fraud of Rs.33,189/- in money-orders. He misappropriated the aforesaid amount by falsifying the accounts of post office. He was charged, tried and ultimately convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, 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. Criminal Revision No.2077 of 2003 -2- Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1995. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony due to protracted proceedings which remained pending in the different Courts. Custody certificate, produced by learned State counsel, reveals that the petitioner has already undergone 1 month and 17 days of the substantive sentence. The petitioner is 65 years old and has already retired from service. He has already deposited the defalcated amount. Under these peculiar circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Under these circumstances, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the extent that the petitioner be released on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1956 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/-, as costs of litigation within three months from today, failing which, this petition shall be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 04.03.2010 mamta-II