STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SHIV LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE state -petitioner makes a grouse of the appellate order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, on October 29, 1985, releasing the respondent on probation.

(2.) THE trial Magistrate found Shri Shiv Lal respondent guilty of embezzling Rs. 48,684.04 while working as Cashier of Rasulpur Cooperative Agricultural Society Ltd., Rasulpur, in the year 1975. As a result of that, he was awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - vide order dated December 24, 1980. On appeal by the convict, the appellate Court vide its impugned order, while upholding the conviction, observed thus : -

(3.) MR . Sharma, appearing for the State, now contends before me with some amount of vehemence that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the release of the respondent on probation is travesty of justice. He high lights that the accused has already been found guilty of misappropriation and misuse of his office of trust. He virtually crippled the Society by deflacating such a heavy amount as Rs. 48,684.04. I see merit in the stand of the learned counsel. Besides the above -noted submissions, I find that on the last date of hearing on November 28, 1986, the accused who was present in -person undertook to deposit the above -noted deflacated amount of Rs. 48,684.04 within a month. His learned counsel, however, tells me today - the accused himself being not present that as per his instructions, the said amount has not been deposited by the respondent on the plea that he cannot make arrangement for such a heavy amount. It is thus patent that the respondent wants to gloat over the amounts and to enjoy the benefits of his release on probation granted to him by the lower Court. I, therefore, have no hesitation in upsetting the order of the lower appellate Court to the extent that it directs the release of the respondent -accused on probation. I thus set aside the appellate order to the above -noted extent and restore the sentence and punishment awarded to him by the trial Court. As a result of this, the appeal stands allowed and the respondent -accused is directed to undergo his sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, if not already paid. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. Appeal allowed.