JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition filed by Chandu Ram under section 397 read with section 401, Cr. P.C. against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, dated August 24, 1974. by which the appeal filed by Chandu Ram against his conviction under section 408, I P.C. was p inly accepted and while maintaining his conviction for the aforesaid offence the sentence passed against him was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and the sentence of fine and imprisonment in default thereof were maintained. The petitioner was convicted under section 320, I.P.C. also by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment whereof to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were, however, ordered to run concurrently. It will not be out of place to mention that the petitioner was tried for offence u/s. 408, I.P.C. by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, and was found guilty thereof. The Assistant Sessions Judge while convicting the petitioner under section 408 I.P.C. sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 31 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, and in default of payment of tine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case against the petitioner was as follows The petitioner was an employee of Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Umawala. Tehsil Suratgarh during the period between July 1, 1967 and June 30, 1968 He was appointed to the post of Cashier and Treasurer of the said Samiti and he worked in that capacity during the aforesaid period. As a Cashier and Treasurer it was his duty to receive Government money from the co-operative Bank on behalf of the said Samiti and to distribute the same as loan to the members and to realise it from them along with interest Each member of the said Samiti who secured the loan, got a pass-book in which entries regarding loan and its repayment were made by the petitioner On August 17, 1967, the petitioner and the President of the said Samiti. namely, Khumbha Ram withdrew a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from the Central Co-operative Bank, Raisinghnagar and distributed this amount later-on, to the members of the said Samiti as Loan. namely, Khumbha Ram withdrew a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from the Central Co-operative Bank, Raisinghnagar and distributed this amount later-on, to the members of the said Samiti as Loan. The prosecution case is that on may 12, 1969, Shri Ishwar Das, Executive Officer. Ganganagar Central Co-operative Bank inspected the cash book of the said Samiti and discovered that Rs. 6866.06 were shown in balance therein. He demanded the aforesaid sum from the petitioner for verification of the account. The petitioner could not produce the sum of Rs. 6866.06 before the Executive Officer Shri Ishwar Das. Thereupon, Shri Ishwar Das gave a note to this effect in the rash book of the said Samiti and, later on. directed audit of the accounts of the period between July 1, 1967 and June 30, 1968. The accounts were audited by Shri Onkar Singh, who discovered that the sum of Rs. 6866.06 was missing and the petitioner could not produce that cash balance upon demand. Shri Onkar Singh further detected that during the aforesaid period of audit the petitioner had received repayments of loan to the tune of Rs. 19752.10 P, together with interest from the members of the said Samiti but this amount was not credited in the cash book, nor it was accounted for in the account books of the said Samiti. Shri Onkar Singh prepared a list of 42 members from which whom the petitioner had received repayments of loan advanced to them. Shri Onkar Singh upon further probe into the matter came to know that on January 10, 1968, the petitioner had passed a resolution to the effect that he was authorised to purchase fertilisers on behalf of Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala from Krya Vikrya Sahakari Samiti Pilibanga, hereinafter referred to as the Samiti Pilibanga, and on the basis of the said resolution lie purchased 500 bags of urea and 25 bags of amonia sulphate from Shri Shiv Raj. Manager of the Samiti, Pilibanga. The cost of the fertilisers was Rs. 22028.75 P The petitioner paid Rs. 6000/-, on several dates to Shri Shiv Raj and the balance of Rs. 16028.75 P. was outstanding against him. Manager of the Samiti, Pilibanga. The cost of the fertilisers was Rs. 22028.75 P The petitioner paid Rs. 6000/-, on several dates to Shri Shiv Raj and the balance of Rs. 16028.75 P. was outstanding against him. Shri Onkar Singh, Auditor, found that the fertilisers wert not accounted for in the record of the Samiti and no entry was made regarding them It also came to the notice of the Auditor that the petitioner wrongly mentioned in the account books that he had paid a sum of Rs. 1929/-, as loan to one Niku Ram, but this amount was not received by Niku Ram. In this manner, the Auditor came to a conclusion that the petitioner had misappropriated the amount of Rs. 43430.36 P. in toto. Hence, he submitted his audit report to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sri Ganganagar, who, on the strength of the audit report issued noticeto the petitioner for realisation of the said sum but the petitioner failed to pay it off. Consequently, on March 17, 1970, the Assistant Registrar made a report to the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar about this embezzlement, who forwarded it to the Station House Officer, Suratgarh. The Station House Officer, Suratgarh, registered a criminal case under section 408, I.P.C against the petitioner and took up usual investigation into the matter. In the course of investigation, the police seized the relevant record of the Grain Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala, and collected other necessary evidence in the case Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner in the court of the Munsiff Magistrate, Suratgarh, who, held an inquiry preparatory to commitment and, upon finding a prima-facie case triable by the court of the Sessions Judge, committed the petitioner to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Shri Ganganagar. It appears that after commitment the case was transferred to the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, for trial in accordance with law. The Assistant Sessions Judge charge-sheeted the petitioner under section 408, I.P.C and conducted the trial. After the trial was over, the Assistant Sessions Judge heard the final arguments and came to the conclusion upon evidence that the petitioner was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 408, I.P.C. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner stated above. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence under See. After the trial was over, the Assistant Sessions Judge heard the final arguments and came to the conclusion upon evidence that the petitioner was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 408, I.P.C. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner stated above. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence under See. 408, I.P.C. the petitioner preferred an appeal in the court of the Sessions Judge. Sri Ganganagar, who, upon perusal of the record and hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor, for the State, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of an offence of cheating also, which is punishable under Section 420, I.P.C. He, therefore, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 408, I.P.C. reduced the sentences awarded to him under that section and in addition thereto convicted him under Section 420, IPC. also and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. As against this judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, the petitioner has come-up in revision to this Court, as stated above. 3. I have perused the record and heard Mr. M.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.S. Shishodia and Mr. M.D. Purohit, Public Prosecutors, for the State. Firstly, it has been vehemently contended before me that the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, committed a grave error in convicting the petitioner of the offence punishable under section 420, I.P.C. without any specific charge framed against him in the trial court and in the absence of any proof of false representation on the part of the petitioner which constituted deception. It was further urged that the false representation, if any, made by the petitioner must be proved to have induced Shiv Raj to part with the fertilisers. According to the submission of Mr. M.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, the burden of proving falsity of the representation is never shifted from the prosecution and, if any reasonable explanation is afforded by the accused, the court must take it into consideration and if such explanation may reasonably be true, though the court is not convicted about its truth, the accused should be acquitted. M.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, the burden of proving falsity of the representation is never shifted from the prosecution and, if any reasonable explanation is afforded by the accused, the court must take it into consideration and if such explanation may reasonably be true, though the court is not convicted about its truth, the accused should be acquitted. The Public Prosecutors, on the other hand, contended that it has been proved by the prosecution that the petitioners obtained fertilisers from Shiv Raj, P.W. 33 on the false representation or pretext that the resolution had been passed by the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala on January 10, 1968 and that he was authorised to receive fertilisers from the Samiti, Pilibanga on the strength of that resolution. It was further urged that the resolution was not only false but the petitioner who brought into being such a resolution knew that it was false and with such knowledge he made false representation to Shiv Raj making the latter believe that a resolution had been passed lay the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala and thereby inducing Shiv Raj to deliver fertilisers to him. 4. I have considered the above rival contentions. At the outset I may observe that no charge under section 420, I.P.C. was framed against the petitioner at the trial The petitioner was charge-sheeted under section 408, I.P.C. only for dishonest dis-appropriation of the amount of the fertilisers amounting to Rs 22028.75F.which he secured from Shiv Raj, P.W 33, Manager of the Samiti, Pilibanga, on the basis of a resolution alleged to have been passed by the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala. in a case of cheating there must be a charge which must set out the manner in which offence was committed. The wording of the charge must reasonably be sufficient to give the accused notice of the accusation which he has got to meet In short, I may say that the charge must contain allegation regarding deceit and the intention with which the accused deceived the complainant. As stated above, there was not such charge framed against the petitioner at the trial even in the I, alternative. As stated above, there was not such charge framed against the petitioner at the trial even in the I, alternative. Criminal breach of trust and cheating are different offences and in the absence of a charge setting out deception which has been practised by the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner had obtained fertilisers by dishonest inducement, conviction of the petitioner under section 420, IPC on his appeal by the Sessions Judge cannot be upheld, especially when he had no notice of such accusation, because the allegations regarding deceit and the intention with which the petitioner deceived Shiv Raj, P.W. 33, Manager of the Samiti, Pilibanga which he had got to meet, were not brought to the notice of the petitioner at the trial. This is a defect, which in my opinion, is not cured by the curative provisions of the old Criminal Procedure Code contained in Section 537, thereof. Apart from the absence of charge of cheating, which resulted in prejudice to the petitioner, there is no reliable proof on the record that the representation on the basis of which fertilisers were obtained by the petitioner from P.W. 33 Shiv Raj was false to the knowledge of the petitioner at the time when it was made. It appears that the petitioner obtained fertilisers of the value of Rs. 22028.75 P. from Shiv Raj on the basis of a resolution alleged to have been passed by the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala, and made payments towards this sum to the tune of Rs. 6000/-, to Shiv Raj, P.W. 33, Manager of the Samiti. Pilibanga, an different dates thereafter. The allegation of the prosecution against the petitioner was that no such resolution was passed by Cram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala, in a meeting held on January 10, 1968 and the petitioner was not authorised by the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala, to obtain fertilisers from Samiti, Pilibanga. It will not be out of place to mention in this connection that the resolution has been recorded in the register of proceedings of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala, dated January 10, 1968. It bears the signatures of the petitioner. It will not be out of place to mention in this connection that the resolution has been recorded in the register of proceedings of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala, dated January 10, 1968. It bears the signatures of the petitioner. The mere fact that it does not contain the signatures of the other members of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala, is not sufficient to hold that the resolution was a fictitious one, especially when it was verified by Loan Inspector, Shri Rajendra Singh as admitted by Shiv Raj, P W. 33 in his statement at the trial. Shiv Raj. P.W. 33 further admitted in his deposition at the trial that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 1500/- on May 16, 1968, a sum of Rs. 3000/-, on May 30, 1968 and an amount of Rs. 1500/-, on February 12, 1968, to him towards the cost of the fertilisers which he had secured as loan from him. The gist of the offence oI cheating is the guilty intention and merely because the petitioner broke his contract afterwards and put forward false excuses to defeat it by not paying of the balance of Rs. 16028.75 P. to Shiv Raj, P.W. 33, it cannot be safely held that he had a guilty when he entered into the contract and obtained fertilisers from Shiv Raj, P.W. 33. The petitioner could be held guilty under sec. 4-20, I.P C. only when it would have been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that he knew from the very beginning that the representation which he was making to Shiv Raj, P.W. 3, was a false one and it was on the basis of that representation that he obtained fertilisers of the value of Rs. 22028 75 P. from the latter. If the petitioner had guilty intention from the very beginning, he would not have made payments to the tune of Rs. 6000/-, on different dates to Shiv Raj, P.W. 33 towards the cost of the fertilisers In this view of the matter also, I am reluctant to maintain the conviction of the petitioner under section 420, I.P.C. It is no doubt true that the petitioner could not satisfactorily account for the fertilisers of the value of Rs. 6000/-, on different dates to Shiv Raj, P.W. 33 towards the cost of the fertilisers In this view of the matter also, I am reluctant to maintain the conviction of the petitioner under section 420, I.P.C. It is no doubt true that the petitioner could not satisfactorily account for the fertilisers of the value of Rs. 22528 75 P. It appears that he dishonestly misappropriated this property and did not even make necessary entries relating to the receipt of the fertilisers in the account books of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala, as is evident from the statement of Onkar Singh, P.W. 30. He was, therefore, guilty of the offence under section 408, I.P.C. in respect of this item also. 5. As regards the offence under Section 408, I.P.C. it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner had been entrusted with the amount of Rs. 8266.93 P or had any dominion over this sum in the capacity of the Cash.e and Treasurer of the Gram Sewa Sahakaii Samiti, Umawala and that he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of this amount. The above contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in view of the overwhelming evidence that the petitioner was the Cashier and Treasurer of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala, between the period July 1, 1957 and June 30, 1958, and that in that capacity he received re-payments of loans to the tune of Rs. 19752.10 P. But this amount was not credited in the cash book of the said Samiti, nor was this amount produces before the Auditor upon his demand. It will not be out of place to mention that the petitioner was found guilty of criminal breach of trust in respect of an amount of Rs. 8266.93 P. out of the total sum of Rs. 19752.10 P. which was received by him as repayments of loan from several members of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala. The Assistant Sessions Judge, who tried the petitioner excluded the amount of Rs. 11486 83 P. as it was not received within one year mentioned in the charge and convicted the petitioner for criminal breach of trust in respect of the remaining amount of Rs. 8266.83 P. plus the cost of the fertilisers. The Assistant Sessions Judge, who tried the petitioner excluded the amount of Rs. 11486 83 P. as it was not received within one year mentioned in the charge and convicted the petitioner for criminal breach of trust in respect of the remaining amount of Rs. 8266.83 P. plus the cost of the fertilisers. The Assistant Sessions Judge further held that the amount of Rs. 1929/-, alleged to have been advanced to Niku Ram by the petitioner was not proved. Hence, it has to be determined whether the petitioner in his capacity as Cashier and Treasurer of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala, committed criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs 8266.83 P. during the period between July 1, 1967 and June 30, 1968. From the evidence of P.WK 1 to 8, P.Ws. 10 to 16, P W. 18, P.W. 19, P W. 22 and P.W. 28 it is established beyond reasonable doubt that these witnesses were members of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala and had cured loans of various amounts from the petitioner and paid back the same along with interest to the petitioner who made necessary endorsements in their respective pass books. There is further evidence of Dhonkal Ram, P.W. 17. Secretary, Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala, which proves the signatures of the petitioner in the pass book. The prosecution has further examined Munshi Ram, Cashior of Raisinghanagar Central Cooperative Bank. His evidence is that there was an account of Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala in his aforesaid Bank and that the petitioner and Kumbha Ram received a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from the said Bank on the basis of payment vouchers marked Exs. P. 7 and P. 38. In his cross-examination, he. however admitted that vide receipts Exs. D. 3 to D. 9 a sum of Rs. 23,407/- only was deposited in the Bank by the petitioner towards the loan amount of Rs. 40,000/-. The petitioner could not satisfactorily account for the sums which he had received from P.Ws 1 to 8 P.Ws. 10 to 16, P Ws 18, 19, 22 and P.W. 28 who as members of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Umawala, had secured loans of various amounts from the petitioner and had paid back the same along with interest to him. The petitioner could not satisfactorily account for the sums which he had received from P.Ws 1 to 8 P.Ws. 10 to 16, P Ws 18, 19, 22 and P.W. 28 who as members of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Umawala, had secured loans of various amounts from the petitioner and had paid back the same along with interest to him. Onkar Singh, P W. 30, who audited the account of Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala clearly stated in his deposition at the trial that a sum of Rs. 6866 06 P. was shown in balance in the account book of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala on July 1, 1968, but the petitioner could not produce this sum before Onkar Singh for physical verification. Onkar Singh further stated that the petitioners secured fertilisers of the value of Rs. 22028.75 P from Samiti, Pilibanga, on January 11, 1968 but no entry was made relating to this property in the account books of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala, by the petitioner, who merely disclosed to him that a sum of Rs. 6000/-, was paid to Shiv Raj, P.W. 33, Manager of the Samiti, Pilibanga, towards the cost of fertilisers. Likewise, Onkar Singh came to know in the course of auditing the accounts of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, that the petitioner and Kumbha Ram received a sum of Rs. 40,000/-, from Co-operative Bank, Reisinghnagar, as loan for giving this amount to the members of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala on credit. An entry relating to the receipt of this amount was made in the Rohak Bahi of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala, dated August 18, 1968. This amount was distributed amongst the members of the said Samiti and the members repaid amounts of loan given to them along with interest to the petitioner, but all the repayments were not credited in the account books of Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala. Hence, it is proved reasonable doubt that the petitioner was rightly held guilty for the criminal breach of trust in respect of the amount of Rs. 8266.93 P. which he had received from the members of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala, and which he could not account for satisfactorily. No doubt, there is proof on the record that repayments to the tune of Rs. 8266.93 P. which he had received from the members of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala, and which he could not account for satisfactorily. No doubt, there is proof on the record that repayments to the tune of Rs. 19752.10 P. were made to him by the members of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, but, as stated earlier, the Assistant Sessions Judge excluded the amount of Rs. 11486.17 P as recovery thereof did not fall within one year of the charge and convicted the petitioner only for criminal breach of trust in respect of the amount of Rs. 8266.93 P. only. 6. In regard to the balance in the cash book, the petitioner produced a receipt Ex. D. 1 purported to have been executed by Hargulal in his favour for this amount. The petitioner contended that he paid this amount of Rs. 6866.06 P. to Hargulal for making the deposit thereof in the bank, but his plea was rightly rejected by both the courts below for reasons given out in their judgments which I need not reproduce for fear of repetition. Likewise, with regard to the amount realised from the members of the Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Umawala, the petitioner contended that the members had paid back the amount of loan with interest to Hargulal and Kumbha Ram and he had no dominion over this amount as it never came into his possession The above plea also was rightly rejected by the Assistant Sessions Judge, because, as stated earlier, there is ample evidence on the record that the payments were made to the petitioner by the members and he put his signatures to the entries relating to such repayments in their pass books. As regards the cost of fertilisers, which were obtained by the petitioner from Shiv Raj, P.W. 33, Manager of the Samiti, Pilibanga, the petitioners contention was that he did not receive fertilisers and the same were received by Shiv Raj who promised him that he would deposit the cost thereof in the account of the Samiti, Pilibanga and would send necessary receipt to the petitioner for the purpose of his record. The above plea of the petitioner also was rightly rejected by the Assistant Sessions Judge, because there is evidence of Shiv Raj. P.W. 33 on the record that fertilisers were given to the petitioner and that he paid a sum of Rs. The above plea of the petitioner also was rightly rejected by the Assistant Sessions Judge, because there is evidence of Shiv Raj. P.W. 33 on the record that fertilisers were given to the petitioner and that he paid a sum of Rs. 6000/- on different dates to him towards their cost. Receipt Ex. D. 11 purported to have been executed by Shiv Raj was rightly held to be a forged and fictitious one by the Assistant Sessions Judge for reasons recorded by him with which I fully agree and which I need not reproduced here. Mr. M.M Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner also could not succeed in assailing the evidence led by the prosecution to prove the charge of the criminal breach of trust in respect o the amount of Rs. 8266, plus cost of fertilisers amounting to Rs. 2228.75 P Consequently, upon careful review of the entire evidence, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner was rightly held guilty of the offence punishable under section 408, I.P.C and, there are no substantial grounds for interference with the findings of the courts below as to his guilt for the aforesaid offence. 7. On the point of sentence, it has been strenuously urged before me by Mr. M M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner that it appears from the record that there were other person, namely, Hargulal, Loan Inspector, Co operative Societies. Suratgarh, Kumbha Ram, President of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala and Dhonkal Ram, Secretary to the said Samiti who were involved in the commission of the offence of criminal breach of (rust of the property of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala along with the petitioner and so this fact may betaken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance as it has a bearing on the question of sentence. Mr. M M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, further argued that the petitioner has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for 67 days as he was convicted by the Sessions Judge on August 27, 1974 and released on bail by die High Court on October 28, 1974 and actually furnished bail bonds on November 1, 1974. Mr. M M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, further argued that the petitioner has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for 67 days as he was convicted by the Sessions Judge on August 27, 1974 and released on bail by die High Court on October 28, 1974 and actually furnished bail bonds on November 1, 1974. Besides he has undergone detention for 6 days during investigation of this case and further underwent sentence for 3 days, as he was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge on March 28, 1974 and was released on bail by the Sessions Judge on April 2, 1974. According to his submission, ends of justice would be met, if his substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine of Rs 2000/- imposed on him is increased to a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The above contention has some force. The circumstance that other persons like Hargulal, Kumbha Ram and Dhonkal Ram might have been involved in the criminal breach of trust does not exonerate the petitioner from his guilt which has been proved to the hilt by the prosecution, but nevertheless this circumstance could be taken into consideration in awarding sentence to the petitioner, because if the President and the Secretary of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala, would have been vigilant and would have exercised such care and caution in the discharge of their duties as could be expected from a prudent person, the petitioner would have been easily prevented from committing breach of trust in respect of the property of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Umawala. Apart from this, the petitioner had been facing criminal proceedings since 1971 and I do not consider it proper to send him back to jail after about 9 years, especially when he has already undergone imprisonment for 70 days and has undergone detention in the course of investigation for 6 days in addition thereto. Hence, in my opinion, ends of justice would be met if, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 408 I.P.C. the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him, and the fine of Rs. 2000/- imposed on him by the trial court is increased to Rs. 5000/-. 8. Hence, in my opinion, ends of justice would be met if, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 408 I.P.C. the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him, and the fine of Rs. 2000/- imposed on him by the trial court is increased to Rs. 5000/-. 8. The net result of the above discussion is that the revision petition filed by Ghandu Ram is partly accepted and his convictions and sentences under Section 420, I.P.C. are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. However, his conviction under Section 408, I.P.C. is upheld and the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to a period already undergone by him, and the sentence of fine of Rs. 2000/-, imposed on him by the trial court is increased to Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The petitioner is on bail and need not surrender to his bail bonds which are hereby cancelled. Two monthstime is granted to him to deposit the amount of fine in the court of the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, failing which necessary action under the law shall be taken against the petitioner.Revision partly accepted. *******