Shyam Sunder vs State of U.P.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

In this case there is an admission by the appellant that he had encashed one cheque of Rs. 2,025, although he has been charged with encashment of three cheques. He was an Assistant Clerk in Hindu Inter College, Atarra, and the informant was the Principal of that college.

So far as the charge of three cheques or one cheque is concerned, even if encashment of one cheque is admitted to the applicant, the offence has been established against him. So without entering into the controversy on facts, I intend to decide this revision on the question of. sentence alone. So candidly conceded by the learned counsel for the applicant and agreed to by the learned counsel for the State.

The case set up by the applicant was that no doubt he had encashed the amount of these cheques, but had paid these amounts to the Principal. It was not his duty to deposit the amount in Recurring Deposit Scheme in the Post Office and, thereby, he had denied any embezzlement of the amount.

In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Kamta Prasad, the Principal. P.W. 2 Chandra Shekhar Pandey was examined to support the case of the prosecution further. Apart from these witnesses, no other witness was examined. Since the accusedapplicant has accepted only encashment of one cheque and denied the encashment of other cheques, it was bounded duty of the prosecution to examine officials from the Bank to establish that part.

In view of the above discussions and the circumstances that since the applicant admits encashment of one cheque worth Rs. 2,025, the cheque against that amount is established against him.

The trial Court convicted the applicant on 14121984. The appeal was heard and decided on 1811985. This revision was admitted here in this Court on 1121985 and the applicant was allowed bail on that very day. It must have taken him a day or two to come out from the jail. This Court, initially, during pendency of investigation, granted bail to the applicant. Under the procedure an application for bail comes up for consideration before this Court only on the expiry of a period of minimum ten days. Taking all these facts and circumstances under consideration, the total minimum period for which the applicant remained in jail during investigation and trial and after the conviction, in my opinion, comes to nearly two months. This is also borne out from record.

In view of these facts and circumstances, since the offence was committed as far back as in the year 1977, in my opinion, it will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice if the sentence of the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone.

In the result the revision is partly allowed to the extent of reducing the sentence to the period already undergone. However, the applicant is directed to pay the line within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Revision partly allowed.