JAI GOPAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was regarding sentence only. The petitioner was found guilty of having committed offence under section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced thereunder to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. in default six month's rigorous imprisonment, by the trial Court. On appeal the learned Additional Session Judge, Hoshiarpur, reduced his sentence of imprisonment to six months but maintained the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default three months rigorous imprisonment. It was found that the petitioner, while working as an entra -departmental delivery agent at the Dasuya Head Post Office had received cash in the sum of Rs. 960/ - representing sums involved in eight money -orders and converted the same to his own use having shown the money -orders paid off to the addressees. It has also been found by the trial Court that the petitioner reimbursed the Department of the said sum of Rs. 960/ - in the financial year 1975 -76. Thus, the established case against the petitioner was temporary embezzlement of Rs. 960/ -. Significantly, there is no charge against the petitioner with regard to forging of documents and consequently there is no conviction against the petitioner in that regard.

(2.) NOW , for the temporary embezzlement of the sum of Rs. 960/ - should the present sentence be the answer is the moot point. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been canvassed he is a Harijan belonging to a weaker section of the Society and at the time when the offence was committed, was a tender boy of 15 -16 years of age, for his age was recorded as 20/21 years by the trial Court in its judgement dated 19 -5 -1982. The petitioner is concededly a first offender. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended on his behalf that he be given the benefit of probation, especially when the sum involved was small and it had been retained for a small period. Additionally it has been contended that the petitioner be shown mercy on account of his social background and pointed towards the goal of reformation. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand prays for the maintenance of the reduced sentence as imposed by the appellate Court which as said before is six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default three months rigorous imprisonment.

(3.) HAVING regard to all the circumstances afore -enumerated, I feel it is a fit case in which the petitioner be released on probation, if not for anything else, at least for his social handicap and comparative youth. Let him execute a bond in the terms of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act in the sum of Rs. 300/ - with two sureties each in the like amount, operative for a period of two years before the trial Court, binding himself to come and receive sentence when called upon to do so and, in the meanwhile, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.