THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.R.C.No.937 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.325 of 2001, confirming the judgment, dated 27.08.2001, passed by XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.115 of 1998, wherein and whereby the petitioner herein-accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count, in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months for each count. The brief facts of the case, necessary for the disposal of the case are that the petitioner worked as Senior Assistant in the Indian Institute of Health and Family Welfare, Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad, from November, 1992 to December, 1996. He was entrusted with the duties of accounts department i.e., to process note files and to get approvals of the Director for making the payments by drawing the amounts from Andhra Bank, S.R.Nagar Branch, Hyderabad, through cheques. While so, he adopted a modus operandi to operate the note file and put up before the officers concerned and after obtaining the signatures on the cheques from the officers concerned, but, before presentation of the same to the bank, he used to interpolate the figures in words and drew excess amounts and accounted only the actual amount for which the note file was prepared. Likewise, on thirty five occasions, the petitioner drew excess amount totaling to Rs.14,80,000/- as against the actual amount of Rs.2,09,832/- between the years 1994 and 1996. Basing on the audit report of M/s Ramanadham and Rao Company, a Private Charted Accountant, the Director of the Institute lodged a complaint with the police and that during the course of investigation, the cash book, note file, pass book and other relevant records were sent to the Handwriting expert, who opined that the disputed writings on the cheques were made by the same person who made the admitted handwritings. Hence, a case was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. On appearance of the accused, he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charges under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-48 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, after advancing his arguments for some time on merits of the case, 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 respondent-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