[2025:RJ-JP:45053] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 782/2008 Satya Narayan Garg S/o Chandra Prakash, R/o 17/199, Miththa lal ka Chowk, Purani Mandi, Ajmer ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, A.G.A HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 10/11/2025 1. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused-petitioner – Satya Narayan Garg against Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2008 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) no. 2, Beawar, District Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No. 24/07 (24/07, 19/03 Old nos.) (Satya Narayan Garg Vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner has been dismissed, his conviction for the offence under Sections 408 & 477-A IPC as recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial, Beawar (Raj.) vide its judgment and order dated 16.09.2003 in Criminal Case No. 32/93 (State vs. Satya Narayan Garg) has been affirmed, whereas the sentence awarded to him by the trial court is modified, as mentioned below. [2025:RJ-JP:45053] (2 of 7) [CRLR-782/2008] Sentence awarded by the trial court Sentence modified by the appellate court under Section 408 IPC- to undergo 3 years S.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months S.I. under Section 408 IPC- to undergo 1 year S.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months S.I. under Section 477-A IPC- to undergo 3 years S.I. with fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months S.I. under Section 477-A IPC- to undergo 1 year S.I. with fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months S.I. 2. Facts of the case in short are that on 23.09.1993, complainant Suresh Vaishnav (PW 2), Branch Manager State Bank of India, Beawar submitted a written report to SHO, Police Station, Beawar City, stating that accused-petitioner was working as a Clerk in their bank from the past several years. He had worked at various counters. There was a current account no. 4/28009 in the name of Satyanarayan Garg and Mrs. Krishna Garg, through which accused-petitioner had been conducting transactions and his salary was also deposited in the said account. In the first week of April of 1993, while searching difference in the Current account no. 4, embezzlement was detected and it was found that the accused-petitioner had withdrawn Rs. 2000/- on 9.11.1992 through cheque no. 028924 and Rs. 3000/- on 12.11.1992 through cheque no. 310525 despite the fact that there was insufficient balance in the account. Since the original ledger sheet was not found in the bank, the accused-petitioner himself placed new ledger sheet on 20.11.1992. Thereafter, he withdrew Rs. 5000/- on 21.11.1992 via cheque no. 79175 but entries of the cheque were crossed out. On 16.11.1992 he added Rs. 10,000/- [2025:RJ-JP:45053] (3 of 7) [CRLR-782/2008] towards the interest to escape the embezzlement. The accused- petitioner also withdrew Rs. 3000/- through cheque no. 791752 and Rs. 2000/- through cheque no. 79153 on 23.11.1992. The accused-petitioner was stated to have embezzled the total amount of Rs. 28,900 by tampering with the bank's accounts book and balance sheet etc. On the basis of said report, police registered case no. 192/03 for the offence under sections 467, 468, 408, 420 of IPC. During the investigation, statement of witnesses were recorded and original documents were seized, specimen signatures of the accused-petitioner were obtained. After investigation, the challan was filed against the petitioner for the offence under sections 408 & 477 IPC. The court below framed charges against the accused petitioner for the afforesaid offences,. The accused petitioner denied the charges and claimed for trial. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dated 16.09.2003 convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Section 408 & 477 IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal and the appellate court vide its judgment dated 21.07.2008 dismissed the appeal qua conviction of the petitioner for the said offences but modified the sentence as awarded by the trial court. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner does not want to press instant revision petition challenging judgments passed by the courts [2025:RJ-JP:45053] (4 of 7) [CRLR-782/2008] below qua conviction and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1993 i.e. around 32 years ago; accused-petitioner was 33 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 65 years old and facing agony of trial for the past about 32 years; accused- petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and remained in police and judicial custody for a period of 32 days and the disputed money has already been deposited and there is no previous conviction recorded against the accused-petitioner, therefore, he prays that ends of justice would meet if a lenient view is taken in the matter and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgments rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Badrilal vs State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 470/2004) decided on 22.05.2024, Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 577/1999) decided on 30.07.2019 and Purkha Ram vs. State Of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 275/2004) decided on 06.11.2024 and judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hakam Singh Vs. State of Punjab (CRR no. 424 of 2006; CRR no. 425 of 2006; CRR no. 426 of 2006) decided on 12.09.2013 and the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble [2025:RJ-JP:45053] (5 of 7) [CRLR-782/2008] Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi in the case of Sachchidanand Mishra VS. State of Jharkhand (Cr. Revision no. 974 of 2008) decided on 17.01.2020. 8. Per contra, learned Special public prosecutor while opposing the revision petition, submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking orders passed by the courts below, sentence awarded by the trial court and modified by the appellate court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through judgments passed by both the courts below and record of the case. 10. Since the revision petition against conviction of the accused- petitioner is not pressed on merits and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the courts below. This Court does not wish to interfere in the judgments passed by courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner. Accordingly, the judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are maintained. 11. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, after perusing judgments and orders impugned, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties; precedent law on the issue; accused-petitioner, who was only 33 years of age at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of around 32 years and he remained [2025:RJ-JP:45053] (6 of 7) [CRLR-782/2008] incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioner is produced on record, this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage, he is sent behind bars the family of the petitioner will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now. 12. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) “There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.” Haripada Das (Supra) “…considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…” 13. Consequently, the judgments dated 21.07.2008 and 16.09.2003 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 408 & 477 I.P.C. are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court and modified by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by him, which [2025:RJ-JP:45053] (7 of 7) [CRLR-782/2008] would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. However, the fine imposed upon the petitioner is hereby enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to 2000/- and from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 4000/- total 6000/- along with default stipulation. Three months' time is granted to deposit the fine. The accused-petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds be cancelled. 14. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. 15. A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial court forthwith. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J Gourav /84