MAHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case notice was issued regarding sentence. The petitioner who was Secretary of Kotpura Co-operative Credit Society, district Karnal, has been convicted under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of which he was to, further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The allegations against the petitioner were that he had embezzled an amount of Rs. 20,261.73 of the Society. On trial, the petitioner was held guilty of embezzling not the entire amount but an amount of Rs. 10,875.13 and Rs. 3,891 1.70. Out of this amount, he has deposited a sum of Rs. 7,200/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited before me a case" reported as Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, 1985(2) Recent Criminal Reports 207 : 1985(1) CLR 147, in which the benefit of probation was granted to the Manager of a Co-operative Marketing Society who was proved to have embezzled fertilizer belonging to the Co-operative Society. In that case, it was found that the accused was a first offender. Similar is the position in the present case. The petitioner has got unblemished record. He is in the service of the Co-operative Society for the last seven years, After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the whole case and following the law laid down in Mohan Lal's case (supra), I direct that the petitioner be released on the probation for a period of two years on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3, 000/- and furnishing one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to appear before the Court, if and when called upon to do so, to receive sentence of imprisonment on default and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The petitioner is further directed to pay the balance of the amount exlucding Rs. 7,200/- the Co-operative Society upon which the fine which has been imposed shall stand remitted. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the grant of probation may not stand in the way of the petitioner as regards losing his job is concerned. It is for the Society to see his record and conduct etc and then decide whether he should be allowed to rejoin the duty or not. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. If the statement of deposit of Rs. 7,200/- is not correct, he has to deposit the entire embezzled amount before he is released on probation.