IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 333 of 2004 Date of Decision: April 23,2009 Shri Dharam Singh .....................................................Petitioner Versus State of Punjab..............................................................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Ms. G.K.Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner was sent up for trial under Section 408 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, vide judgment dated 30.11.1995 convicted the petitioner under Section 408 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further R.I. for six months. The petitioner challenged his conviction by filing an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who vide his judgment dated 20.1.2004 upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 408 IPC but reduced the sentence of the petitioner from two years R.I. to one year R.I. The fine as imposed by the trial Court was upheld. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 12.5.1986 Shangara Singh, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Amritsar, wrote a [ 2 ] Crl. Rev. No. 333 of 2004 letter Ex. PW 13/AO to the S.S.P. Amritsar to register a case against the petitioner as he has embezzled an amount of Rs.8,815/- by giving a fictitious loan in favour of one Sohan Singh. On the basis of the letter Ex.PW13/AO, FIR under Section 408 IPC was registered against the petitioner. The trial Court on the basis of findings led found that the petitioner has embezzled the amount of Rs.8,815/- by showing the loan to have been advanced to one Sohan Singh who was not a villager and was made a member of the Cooperative Society Pakharpura with a view to embezzle the amount. The Sarpanch of the village had deposed that Sohan Singh was not a resident of the village. The Court held that Sohan Singh could not have been made a member of the Co-operative Society of the village and that the petitioner has embezzled the amount of Rs.8,815/- and, accordingly, convicted the petitioner. The only argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that as the amount allegedly embezzled in the year 1985 and that the petitioner has faced a long and protracted trial and the FIR was registered on 27.5.1986, therefore, she does not wish to challenge the findings of both the Courts below as far as conviction of the petitioner is concerned but a lenient view be taken while sentencing the petitioner. Learned counsel states that the petitioner has also undergone about two months of actual imprisonment. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondent and find that the amount of Rs.8,815/- was embezzled by the petitioner way back in the year 1985 and the FIR was registered on 27.5.1986. As the petitioner has faced a long and protracted [ 3 ] Crl. Rev. No. 333 of 2004 trial of almost 23 years and has also undergone two months of substantive sentence, therefore, it would be equitable if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the one already undergone by him. Resultantly, I uphold the conviction of the petitioner under Section 408 IPC and reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the one already undergone by him. Revision petition is disposed of. 23.4.2009 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE