THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.R.C.No.938 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.327 of 2001, confirming the judgment, dated 27.08.2001, passed by XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.66 of 1998, wherein and whereby the petitioner herein-accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 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 and 420 IPC, and in default of payment of fine amount, on each count, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of this Revision Case are that the Director of the Indian Institute of Health and Family Welfare lodged a complaint with Abids Road Police Station, Hyderabad, stating that the petitioner, who was working as Senior Assistant in the said Institute, forged cheques and cheated the Institute to a tune of Rs.6.8 lakhs. Subsequently, another complaint, dated 11.03.1997, was lodged against the petitioner that he committed fraud to a tune of Rs.7.6 lakhs and that both the complaints were clubbed and investigated into together. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner, being Senior Assistant, was looking after the accounts of the Institute and his duty was to initiate the files for sanction of amounts and as per the requirements, he obtained sanction from the Directors, Joint Directors and the Administrative Officers for withdrawal of various amounts during the period from 03.08.1993 to 08.1.2.1995. It is further revealed that after obtaining signatures of the competent authorities on the cheques, he forged the cheques by adding numerical digits and also corresponding words in his own handwriting and withdrew the excess amounts from the P.D. Account of the Institute and misappropriated the same. Hence, the charge sheet was laid against the accused for the offences under Sections 648, 471 and 420 IPC. On appearance of the accused, he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charges under Sections 468, 471 and 420 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 18 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-73 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 him 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