SUDESH CHABBA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted in all the matters.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant confined his submissions to the question of sentence only and prayed that the appellant be released an probation under s. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. We are afraid, the contention cannot be accepted. This is not a fit case where the appellant can be released on probation under s. 4 of the Act. The appellant has been found guilty of a serious charge of embezzlement of government money to the tune of Rs. 20,122.39p. She was a Clerk in government High School, Santokhgarh and was entrusted with the job of handling cash. The modus operandi adopted by her was to tamper with the original copy of contingent and festival advance bills after the same were signed by the Head Mistress before presenting them to the Treasury. She would inflate the amount in the bills and present the forged documents to the Treasury and fraudulently effected drawls. The conviction of the appellant for criminal breach of trust, forgery and other allied offences punishable under ss. 409, 167, 168 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the Sessions Judge, Una is unassailable and the High court rightly affirmed the conviction. Looking to the circumstances of the case, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and a fine of Rs. 10,000. 00 awarded by the learned Sessions Judge were well-merited. The High court was therefore justified in not interfering with the sentences.

(3.) However, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the appellant is a housewife having young children, we are of the opinion that the interests of justice would be adequately sub served if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months together with a fine of Rs. 5,000. 00 in addition to Rs. 10,000. 00 as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, or in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. With this modification in the sentence, the appeals fails and is dismissed. Shri M. M. Abdul Khader, learned counsel for the respondent assures that the Government will direct that the appellant be treated as a B Class prisoner and not take manual work from her during her incarceration in jail. She may be given some other work in jail commensurate with her clerical experience.