(1.) Accused Dhulji Kaial was convicted under Sections 408 and 467. Penal Code and sentenced to 3 years, rigorous imprisonment under each count by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doongarpur vide his judgment dated March 5, 1982. He was also sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500.00 under section 408, Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months like imprisonment. He challenged his conviction and sentence by way of appeal. The learned Sessions Judge, Doongarpur allowed his appeal in part. He maintained the conviction of the accused under section 408 and 467. IPC., but reduced the sentence from 3 years to one year under each count. The sentence of fine was maintained. Hence, this revision.
(2.) In view of the overwhelming evidence and the concurrent findings of the courts-below, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner did not challenge his conviction. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sentence awarded to the accused is unduly harsh and excessive. It was argued that the accused was found guilty to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 7, 286. 55p. out of it, he deposited a sum of Rs. 3,436. 55P on 17.3.75 during investigation. Further a sum of Rs. 1,700.00 was recovered from him on 16.6.75 at the time of his arrest. Thus, their remains only a balance of Rs. 2,150.00. For this a amount, the sentence imposed is heavy. As such a lenient view in the matter of of sentence should be taken.
(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the sentence was already reduced from 3 years to one year by the learned Sessions Judge. No further reduction is called for. I have taken the respective submission in to consideration. Admittedly, the amount which remained with the accused is of Rs. 2,150.00. Taking this factor into consideration the sentence of one year appears to be somewhat excessive, in my opinion, a sentence of three months would meet the ends of justice. The sentence of fine does not appear just.