IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.R No.112 of 2001 Date of decision : July 1, 2008 Lajvir Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Present revision petition is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Una, whereby revision petitioner’s appeal against the judgment of trial Court has been partly accepted and partly dismissed. 3. Revision petitioner was employed as an EDBPM during the years 1983 to 1987. It was part of his job to receive money from depositors and to make entries in the pass-books of the depositors and to enter that money in the record of the Post Office. He is alleged to have misappropriated a sum of Rs.9810/- during the aforesaid period. The present case pertains to the year 1987, when he allegedly received Rs.300/- from one Balbir Singh for depositing in his account with the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Post Office, but he misappropriated the said amount of money. However, in the pass-book of said Balbir Singh, he made an entry about the deposit of Rs.300/-. 4. Trial Court charged the revision petitioner with offences, under Sections 409 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Revision petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and was, therefore, put on trial. At the end of trial, he was convicted of both the offences and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- for each of the two offences. Appeal was filed by the revision petitioner in the Court of Sessions Judge. Additional Sessions Judge, who heard it, set aside the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner for offence under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, but upheld his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the sentence awarded by the trial Court and upheld by the first Appellate Court for the offence, under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, may be set aside and the revision petitioner be given benefit of probationary provisions of law. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court, i.e. Bore Gowda v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 260, in which the amount embezzled was Rs.1812/- and the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act to the convict. …3… 6. In the present case, the revision petitioner had been indulging in the acts of embezzlement continuously for a period of four years and the total amount allegedly embezzled by him comes to Rs.9810/-. Therefore, the precedent relied upon by the learned counsel has no application to the present case. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. July 1, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J