JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated April 29, 1972, of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, confirming the conviction of the accused-petitioner under section 409, IPC but reducing the sentence from two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. 2. The petitioner was tried before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Merta, for offence under section 409, IPC. The gist of the offence charged against the accused-petitioner was that he was incharge of the `malkhana' from 5-1-67 to 22-5-68. On 25.5.68 some articles of the 'malkhana' were found missing. Thereupon PW 15 R.P. Mitruka asked the petitioner to produce the valuables of the concerning cases, which bad already been disposed of. The petitioner could not produce some of the articles and as such he reported the matter to PW 19 Shri Suraj Narain Deedwania, who was working as District Judge, Merta, on that day. The learned District Judge gave a first information report to the police, which is marked as Ex. P. 22. On the same day all the articles were produced out of which Art. 15 Hansali was got recovered at the instance of the accused petitioner from PW 13 Chothmal. The case of the prosecution further is that this Hansali was pledged with Chothmal for a sum of Rs 40/- by the accused-petitioner. The prosecution case was supported by PW 15 R.P. Mitruka, before whom the accused-petitioner made an extra judicial confession. It was also supported by PW 19 Suraj Narain Deedwania, author of the first information report, and PW 13 Chothmal, who stated that Hansali (Art. 15) was pledged with him by the accused-petitioner for an amount of Rs. 40/-. He also produced Ex. P. 1, a document alleged to have been executed by the petitioner while pledging that article. The statements of the defence witnesses and the plea of the accused-petitioner was disbelieved by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Placing reliance on the prosecution evidence the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the accused-petitioner under section 409, IPC and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of three months. Placing reliance on the prosecution evidence the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the accused-petitioner under section 409, IPC and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of three months. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Court of Sessions Judge, Merta, who on a re-appreciation of the evidence upheld the conviction of the accused-petitioner under section 409, IPC but reduced the sentence awarded to him by the trial court, as mentioned above. 3. The petitioner thereupon has filed this revision petition. It is not necessary for me 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 as the learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that there are no sufficient grounds made out for challenging the fact that the accused had committed criminal breach of trust regarding Hansali (Art. 15). However, I have carefully gone through (he., evidence led on behalf of the prosecution and I do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent view taken by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge, Merta. I hold that the accused-petitioner was rightly convicted for committing criminal breach of trust punishable under section 409 IPC. 4. The only point which has been canvassed before me is regarding the quantum of sentence. The learned counsel for the petitioner persuasively submitted that the accused-petitioner has a large family. There is no other earning member except the accused-petitioner. In support of his contention he has filed an affidavit Of the accused-petitioner wherein it has been mentioned that he has seven children and his eldest son is suffering from lever trouble. He was dismissed from service with effect from April 29, 1972. He has turned a new leaf in life after his release on bail by this court. Sending him back to jail will have effect of losing his new job, which will be harsh not only to him but to his innocent dependent also. The worst fear is that his children may be tempted to a life of contemptible living or be attracted to a life of crime. As such a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. The worst fear is that his children may be tempted to a life of contemptible living or be attracted to a life of crime. As such a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. The learned counsel further urged that it will meet the ends of justice if the sentence is reduced to already undergone. The learned counsel for the State also felt moved by the pathetic appeal and stated that a lenient view in the matter of sentence would subserve the interest of justice. 5. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on S.B. Criminal Appeals Nos. 425 and 426 of 1966 (Rampal v. State) decided on January 28, 1970 , S.B. Criminal Appeal No 474 of 1970 (Khemchand Jain v. State) decided on November 9, 1971 , S.B. Criminal Appeals Nos. 659, 660 of 1968 and 647 of 1967 (Parasmal Modi v. State) decided on November 17, 1970. In all these unreported cases this court had taken into account the question of pecuniary loss caused to the accused and also the long duration of the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the accused persons while reducing the substantive sentence to one already undergone. In B. C. Goswami v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1973 SC 1457 their Lordships of the Supreme Court while discussing the modern trend of penology has observed as under:- "The question of sentence is always a difficult question requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various consideration which weigh with a judicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum in a given case. The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realise that he has committed an act which is not only harmful to the society of which be forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence, it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining this question. In modern civilised societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining this question. In modern civilised societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentences both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. In the present case, after weighing the consideration already noticed by us and the fact that to send the appellant back to jail now after 7 years of the agony and harassment of these proceedings when he is also going to lose his job. and has to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone out increase the sentence of fine from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 400/-........." 6. There is no dispute between the parties that the entire property regarding which the criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed was produced on the same day, on which the first information report was given and the State has not been put to any pecuniary loss. The appellate court held that the offence of committing criminal breach of trust by the accused relates only to Art. 15 Hansali. It will be pertinent to note that the value of Art. 15 Hansali does not exceed Rs. 40/-: Besides this the accused has been dismissed from service and has lost the benefits of service earned by him for about two decades. It has also not been controverted that the petitioner has a large family and he is the only earning member and one of his son is a patient of lever trouble ; and that after his release on bail no complaint has been received regarding his conduct and that he is not a previous convict. The incident is of the year 1968 and that he has remained in custody for a considerable time during the pendency of these proceedings. Ail these fads when considered conjectively do provide a basis for not sending back the accused-petitioner to jail. The incident is of the year 1968 and that he has remained in custody for a considerable time during the pendency of these proceedings. Ail these fads when considered conjectively do provide a basis for not sending back the accused-petitioner to jail. In Ganeshbhai Shankarbhai v. The State of Gujarat, AIR 1972 SC 1618 his Lordship P. Jagaumohan Reddy J, speaking for the Court, while affirming the conviction of the accused of that case under section 409 and 47 7A, IPC observed as under:- "We have no hesitation in affirming the conviction by the High Court. In so far as the sentence is concerned, we are informed that the appellant had after his acquittal secured employment and is working and since he has served out 19 days of the sentence awarded to him. we think that these circumstances would justify us in considering the sentence already undergone as sufficient and accordingly direct that the sentence already served should be the sentence in this case. With this variation, the appeal is dismissed." 7. Having regard to the special facts and circumstances in which the present offence has been committed ; the large family which he has to maintain ; the value of the property regarding which the criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed, as well as, the fact that the criminal proceedings have lasted for a period of more than 8 years which in itself is deterrent enough to inhabit the repetition of suck offence, and the fact that he has already remained in jail for a considerable time during the pendency of the proceedings, I consider that it would not be in the interest of justice to send the accused back to jail to serve out the remaining short term of sentence of imprisonment awarded by the appellate court. It is not likely to have any reformative effect upon him. I think it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused-petitioner reduced to the period already undergone by him an in lieu of the reduction of the sentence of imprisonment the sentence of fine is enhanced 8. I accordingly allow the revision petition in regard to the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused-petitioner and reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him to that already undergone by him and enhance the sentence of fine from Rs. I accordingly allow the revision petition in regard to the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused-petitioner and reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him to that already undergone by him and enhance the sentence of fine from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 500/- . In default of payment of line the accused-petitioner will undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. *******