BRIJ MOHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 5th Oct. 1978, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran, confirming the conviction and the sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 408 IPC.

(2.) THE petitioner was prosecuted for the offence Under Section 408, IPC, on the written report dated 11th Aug. 1968. lodged by the Manager, Nagrik Sehkari Bank, Baran. It was alleged therein that the petitioner was posted as Manager in that bank and that, during the period from 1st Nov., 1965 to 27th June, 1966, the petitioner misappropriated some amount of the bank, and misused it. It was also alleged that one Mst. Sharbati Devi opened a fixed -deposit account of Rs. 2000/ - on 1st Nov. 1965. The petitioner did not prepare the voucher and no entry was made in the cash -book and the day -book. Then, on 27th June, 1966 one Babulal deposited a sum of Rs. 5000/ - in his Fixed -Deposit a/c No. 68, though Receipt No. 100 dated 27th June, 1966. But, the petitioner deposited Rs. 3000/ - only in the said account of Babulal and the rest amount was deposited in the account of Mst. Sharbati Devi. On 15th July, 1977, Babulal re -deposited Rs. 5,000/ -in his fixed -deposit account vide receipt No. 109 dated 15th July, 1967. In the voucher, cash -book and the pay -book, instead of Rs. 5000/ - after overwriting, Rs. 3.000/ - was made. Although interest on Rs. 5,000/ - was paid to Babulal, the petitioner misused Rs. 2000/ -. Thus, he put the bank in a loss of interest. It was also alleged that Smt. Nirmala Kumari, wife of the accused also opened an account in the said bank where the accused was Manager. On 19th Sept. 1957, there was only a balance of Rs. 55.41 in the said account of Smt. Nirmala Kumari. On that date, the accused through his own signatures, vide voucher No. 423, debited a sum of Rs. 510/ -. But, no entry of this debit was made in the account of Smt. Nirmala Kumari. Thus, a sum of Rs. 492.62 was embezzled in that entry. After investigation, the accused was prosecuted. The learned Magistrate found him guilty Under Section 408, IPC and sentenced him to 2 years RI and a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 month's SI. The petitioner then preferred an appeal against this judgment. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed his appeal and maintained his conviction awarded to him by the learned Magistrate.

(3.) I have considered the argument of the learned counsel. The petitioner has already been in jail for 24 days. Specially because of the fact that the incident relates to the year 1965 -66, and that the petitioner has been facing the trial in this case since then when the challan was submitted and after a lapse of nine years, it would be harsh and most unreasonable if the petitioner is sent back to jail to undergo the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him by the lower court.