KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution the accused was posted as Clerk in the Panipat Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., during the year 1978 and at that time he was dealing with saving bank accounts and the accused had clandestinely withdrawn certain amounts from the accounts of different accounts holders by forging their thumb impressions. Thus the accused was guilty for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. According to the case of the prosecution, the accused had withdrawn a sum of rupees 23,700/- during the months of August, September and October, 1978 from the accounts of Chandgi Ram, Rattan Singh and Lachhman and mis-appropraited the same. On the basis of complaint given by the manager of the Panipat Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., a case was registered against the accused in F.I.R. No. 281, dated 1.3.5.1980. In order to prove the guilt of the accused 18 witnesses were examined. On a consideration of the evidence on record the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- for the offence under Section 467 IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1-1/2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 468 IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 471 IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under section 420 IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction imposed by the learned Magistrate, the accused appellant preferred an appeal to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1987. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal by his judgment dated 11.2.1987 dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed the present revision petition in this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction before me. He only contended that the offence is said to have been taken plane in the year 1978 i.e. more than 18 years back and it is therefore not in the interest of justice to send the accused total to undergo the remaining period of sentence and the accused was already in jail for more than two months. In the circumstances of the case, I do not think it proper to send the accused to jail to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment. I accordingly reduce the sentence of the accused to the period already undergone while maintaining the sentence of fine. Subject to the modification in the sentence of imprisonment as indicated above, the revision petition is dismissed. The amount of fine may be paid in the High Court. The Registry is directed to receive the amount of the fine if tendered. Petition dismissed.