JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-appellant was employed as a cashier in the Polytechnic Institution, Jodhpur run by the Government of Rajasthan, On internal checking it was revealed on May 28 1970 that an embezzlemeat of Rs. 3760/- was committed by the accused-appellant. On May, 30, 1970 the Principal of the Polytechnic, Jodhpur Shri S.N. Goyal (PW 1) lodged a report Ex, P 14 at Police Station, Sardarpura. Jodhpur, The Police after usual investigation submitted a challan against the accused in the Court of Additional Munsiff Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur, who committed the accused to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur who transferred the same to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, jodhpur. The appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur for offences under Section 409 and 477A IPC Prior to the date of conviction the accused deposited an amount of Rs. 3134,10 paisa as admitted by P.W.1 Shri S.N. Goyal. The learned Judge after taking into consideration the fact of payment of the amount and appreciating the evidence led by both the parties convicted the accused appellant under Section 109 IPC and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 6000/-; in default of the payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. He was also convicted under Section 477A IPC and was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It is not necessary to consider the prosecution evidence in detail and all the circumstances brought forth on the record by the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused, an the learned Counsel for the appellant has conceded that there are no sufficient grounds for challenging the conviction. I have also looked into the relevant portion of the record and am satisfied that the prosecution has brought home the guilt to the accused beyond any manner of reasonable doubt. 2. The only question canvassed before roe is with regard to the sentence. As already narrated an amount of Rs. 3134 10 paisa was recovered from the accused During the pendency of the appeal he has deposited an amount of Rs. 934-66 paisa on 1-2-1975. The photo-state copy of the receipt has been Submitted along with an application for the grant of bail dated July 8, 1975. As already narrated an amount of Rs. 3134 10 paisa was recovered from the accused During the pendency of the appeal he has deposited an amount of Rs. 934-66 paisa on 1-2-1975. The photo-state copy of the receipt has been Submitted along with an application for the grant of bail dated July 8, 1975. Thus the State of Rajasthan has been reimbursed to the extent of embezzled amount with which the accused has been charged. The learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the accused was convicted on May 3, 1975 but he was sent to jail on June 9, 1975 for serving out the sentence awarded by the trial court. The learned Counsel prays that the sentence may be reduced to already under gone, and has placed reliance eon,- (1) Adamji v. State of Bombay, AIR 1952 SC 14 (2) G.S. Bansal v. Delhi Administration AIR 1963 SC 1577 (3) Rajkishore v. The State, AIR 1969 Orissa 190 (4) Ganesh Bhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1972 SC 1618 (5) Ved Prakash v. Delhi Administration AIR 1974 SC 2336 3. Learned Counsel for the State does not oppose to the reduction of the substantive sentence but prays that sentence of the fine may be enhanced. 4. The States of Rajasthan has been reimbursed to the extent of Rs. 4070 79 paisa. Thus the appellant has paid the entire amount with interest which he had misappropriated The appellant has already lost his job The criminal proceedings, in the case on hand, were initiated on May 30, 1970. It is true that the lapse of a period between the date of the commencement of the trial and hearing of the appeal is a factor which in the context of a particular case may in conjunction with other circumstances justify the reduction of sentence Lasting of criminal proceedings for a period of nearly 5 years causes not only mental worry but it also means expenses apart from the after dance in the court. The prolonged uncertainty of the result of the case does obstruct the continuity of the normal life. 5. Taking a conspectus of the various circumstances of the case some of which have been indicated above, I am satisfied that ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence. 6. The prolonged uncertainty of the result of the case does obstruct the continuity of the normal life. 5. Taking a conspectus of the various circumstances of the case some of which have been indicated above, I am satisfied that ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence. 6. The result is that the appeal is partly accepted, the conviction of the appellant under Section 409 IPC is maintained, but the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- is reduced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2500/- in default of the payment of which the appellant is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. The conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 477A IPC is maintained, the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment awarded to the accused-appellant is reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Two months time is allowed to deposit the fine imposed by this Court. If the fine is not deposited within the time allowed, the accused-appellant shall undergo imprisonment as mentioned above. 7. It is, however, made clear that the appellant would be entitled to get a set off or adjustment under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 1973 of the period, if, any, during which he remained in jail as an under-trial prisoner. *******