RAMESHCHANDRA BABULALJI SHRIVASTAV Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Jaishingh, counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prakash Verma, Dy. G. A. for respondent. The small point is to be decided in this revision petition and, therefore, on the request of counsel appearing for the litigating parties, this revision petition is being decided finally at this stage.

(2.) THE petitioner has been convicted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandsaur for offence punishable under Section 409 Indian Penal Code for alleged embezzlement of amount the tune of Rs. 31,240. 70 ps. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 30,000/- as learned Magistrate found him guilty for offence under Section 409 Indian Penal Code. The petitioner preferred an appeal in the Sessions Court, Mandsaur challenging the correctness, propriety and legality of that order of conviction and sentence. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner moved an application for suspension of sentence. Learned 3rd A. S. J,. Mandsaur suspended the substantive sentence; however he refused to suspend the sentence of fine and that order has been assailed by the petitioner in this revision petition.

(3.) SHRI Jaisingh counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been suspended since 1981 and he is surviving on subsistence allowance along with his family members who are four in number. He further submitted that the children of the petitioner are grown up and they are studying and, therefore, it is very difficult for the petitioner to meet the requirements of the family members in the said subsistence allowance. He further submitted that it is next to impossible for him to deposit the amount of Rs. 30,000/- which has been directed to be deposited by him as fine. He submitted that when 3rd A. S. J. , Mandsaur was pleased to suspend the substantive sentence he could have suspended the sentence of fine also. It is his prayer that the sentence of fine inflicted on the petitioner by the trial Court be also suspended in the interest of justice keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is surviving on subsistence allowance after his suspension.