THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.R.C.No.939 of 2003 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated 23.06.2003, passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Criminal Appeal No.326 of 2001, confirming the judgment, dated 27.08.2001, passed by XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.177 of 1998, wherein and whereby the petitioner herein-accused No.1 was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 477(A) IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each of the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 477(A) IPC and in default of payment of fine amount on each count, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The facts of the case, in brief, without prolixity, necessary for the disposal of the case are that the petitioner-A-1 and A-2 were the working as Senior Assistants in the Indian Institute of Health and Family Welfare, Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad. The Institute had got P.D.Account No.9/378 with SBH Gunfoundry and SB Account No.50583 with Andhra Bank, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. After shifting the Institute from Old D.M.S. Campus, Sultan Bazar to new premises-Vengalraonagar, they got transferred the account of Andhra Bank, Sultan Bazar to Andhra Bank, S.R.Nagar Branch. While so, the complainant, who is the Director, engaged the services of M/s Ramanadham and Rao Company, a Private Charted Accountant, to verify the transactions of the Institute right from the date of inception. During the course of audit, several serious financial and other irregularities in the maintenance of accounts, which resulted in huge misappropriation of Government funds by the accused was noticed. From the reconciliation of the SB Account of Andhra Bank, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad, P.D.Account, Institute Bank Accounts and transactions of the Institute, huge amounts, which run to lakhs, were found to be misappropriated by the accused. Hence, the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 477(A) IPC. On appearance of the accused, they were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charges under Sections468, 471, 420 and 477(A) IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused, P.Ws.1 to 19 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-37 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. On behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. The trial Court after considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record found the accused guilty of the charges levelled against them and accordingly, convicted and sentenced, as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred appeal before the lower appellate Court, which by its judgment confirmed the order of the trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-Accused No.1, after advancing his arguments for some time confined his argument only as regards the sentence imposed on the accused. He submitted that the alleged offences pertain to the year 1992 and for the past 18 years, the petitioner suffered humiliation; that the present case is a social stigma to the petitioner; further that, now he is aged about 61 years and has to take care of his ailing wife and also look after the welfare of his children; that he is depending for his livelihood on the pension of his mother, who is aged about 80 years and in such circumstances, he urges to take a lenient view. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respnodent-State also did not have any serious objection for reduction of sentence imposed on the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused, and also having regard to the age of the accused, who is now aged about 61 years, and that more than 1 ½ decades passed since the date of the alleged offences, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment of the Court below insofar as imposing sentence on the petitioner can be modified. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences as stated above is confirmed, but the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by the trial Court, as confirmed by the lower appellate Court, is modified to that 50 days of imprisonment and the period of imprisonment already undergone by him shall be given set off. The Criminal Revision Case is, accordingly, allowed in part. _______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 16th June 2010 dr