Criminal Revision No.1993 of 2003(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1993 of 2003 (O&M) Decided on : September 16, 2010 Roop Ram ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocate – amicus curiae for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The Trial Court vide its judgment dated 25.8.2001 convicted Roop Ram – accused/petitioner under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- for embezzling a sum of Rs.13,800/- as entrusted to him for distribution of the same as pension for the eligible persons of villages Kalta and Bhonsla on account of pension. The Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months, without any alteration in the sentence of fine. The allegations, in nutshell, are that in the year 1993, the petitioner was entrusted with a sum of Rs.23,000/- for distributing the same Criminal Revision No.1993 of 2003(O&M) [2] to the pensioners of village Kalta and Bhonsla. Later, it came to the notice that the petitioner had distributed a sum of Rs.9600/- amongst 48 pensioners of village Kalta, but he did not distribute the remaining amount to 70 pensioners of village Bhonsla and, rather was found absent from duty since 23.10.1993. On the said report, the instant case was registered, investigated and ultimately report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was submitted in the Court. The petitioner denied to the charge framed against him under Section 409 IPC and opted to contest. However, the trial ended in conviction. The appeal was also dismissed with certain modification in sentence. Heard, there is no denying a fact that Rs.9600/- were distributed by the petitioner in village Kalta to the pensioners and the remaining amount was to be distributed to 70 pensioners of village Bhonsla. Though, the case of the petitioner is that after distributing the amount of pension at village Kalta, he fell ill and could not attend to his duties, therefore, the amount remained with him, but the fact is that after the registration of the case on 5.1.1994, the remaining amount of Rs.13,800/- was recovered from him. Thus, the offence for which he has been charged, stands duly established. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner has sought some leniency on the point of sentence. In this regard, it is observed that though the petitioner could be said to have committed embezzlement, yet in view of the amount having been recovered from him, no financial loss has been caused to the Government. He is already out of the service and has Criminal Revision No.1993 of 2003(O&M) [3] undergone two months seven days of the substantive sentence. The sword of sentence has been hanging over his head for the last 17 years. Thus, in these peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency to the petitioner on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by the petitioner, without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Amicus curiae would be at liberty to claim remuneration from the competent authority, as per Rules. September 16, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE