Short Note : 1. The accused applicant was the Manager and Accountant of the Market Co-operative Society, Mahidpur and Rooplal was its President. On 20.10.1970, a cheque for Rs. 7,000/- was drawn by the Society under the signature of the applicant and Rooplal. It was alleged that the cheque was encashed by the applicant. However, the amount was not entered in the cash book and was misappropriated by the applicant. On 17.12.1970, one Subhashchandra Inspector of Co-operative Marketing Societies inspected the record of the society and found that there was no entry in the account books of the society regarding withdrawal of the said amount of Rs. 7,000/- by cheque. After investigation the applicant and Rooplal were prosecuted under section 409, I.P.C. Rooplal was acquitted of the offence charged with the applicant was convicted by the trial magistrate under section 409 I.P.C. and was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine of undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. On appeal by the applicant his conviction was maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to one year. The sentence of fine was maintained. The applicant has challenged his conviction and sentence in this revision. 2. The applicant's defence was that he gave the cheque as also another sum of Rs. 7,000/- to one Babulal Sewak who was the vice-president of the Society to purchase wheat worth Rs. 9,000/- and that he did not retain the amount with him. This defence has been disbelieved by the Courts below and in my opinion rightly. If the amount had been given to Babulal Sewak it certainly would have been credited in the accounts of the society in the name of the Bank from which the amount was withdrawn and debited to Babulal Sewak. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that no entry was made in the books of amount because Babulal Sewak said that necessary entries may be wade after he rendered the accounts of the amount said to him. This submission has also no merit because in that case the amount would have been debited in the advance account and would have been adjusted later when the accounts were rendered by Babulal Sewak. 3. This submission has also no merit because in that case the amount would have been debited in the advance account and would have been adjusted later when the accounts were rendered by Babulal Sewak. 3. On the evidence adduced in the case both the Courts below have found the applicant guilty of the offence charged with no serious infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence by the Courts below has been pointed out and there is no ground for interference in the conviction of the applicant in revision. 4. As regards sentence it is on record that the amount involved has been deposited by the father of the applicant and the applicant has undergone about 14 day's imprisonment. He is a young man and has lost his job. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that it would not be expedient to send the applicant to jail again to serve the remaining sentence and ends of justice would be served if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by him. I, therefore, direct that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine and imprisonment in default of payment of fine is maintained. Sentence reduced.