Sant Ram vs State of U.P.

Bhagwan Din, J.—The revisionist Sant Ram was posted and worked as Qurk Amin in Cooperative Societies at Block Development Office Sardhana, District Meerut. His duty was to collect loan advanced to the members of the societies. In discharge of his duties in year 1978 he collected Rs. 7740/ from 15 members but deposited Rs. 1214/ only in the Treasury and thereby misappropriated Rs. 65261and converted the same t o his own use.

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate, Meerut tried him under Section 409, I.P.C. He was of the view that the accused had committed the offence of embezzlement and misappropriation and therefore convicted and sentenced to R.I. for a term of six months. Against the order of his conviction the accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge which was nonsuited. Hence the present revision.

Sri K. K. Srivastava counsel appearing for the revisionist fairly concedes that the case of the revisionist is not sound on merit. He however, urged that the revisionist has lost his services and at present he is out of job. He is, however, ready to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 6526/ said to have been embezzled by him in the Treasury and prays for conversion of the substantive sentence of six months into fine.

I perused the record. The revisionist was prosecuted in the year 1978. Obviously, he must have been put under suspension and on his conviction in the year 1983 he must have been dismissed from services. Thence from he is out of job. The present revision was filed in the year 1984 and had come up for hearing after about 16 years. The revisionist certainly has suffered mental agony for last atleast 21 years since from the trial commenced. In such state of circumstances the revisionist is entitled to lenient view.

The revision is dismissed on merit. However, the substantive sentence is converted to a fine of Rs. 1,000/.

The revisionist shall deposit Rs. 65261 being an amount embezzled by him and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ within a period of four months from today. On his failure to deposit the fine and embezzled amount, shall undergo R.I. for a period of six months.

A copy of this order shall be sent to the trial Court for compliance.

Revision dismissed.