JUDGMENT 1. - As both these criminal revisions arise out of the same set of circumstances and practically the same judgment and common questions of law and fact are involved, they are being disposed by this single order. 2. In Criminal revision No. 427/79, the judgment of the learned Sessions judge, Metta, dated 25-9-79 has been challenged. The appeal against the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagaur dated 21-11-70 was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Merta. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge and hence, this revision petition. It has been contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge erred in law in upholding the decision of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge and convicting the accused-petitioner to pay a fine of Rs 5,000/- for the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge held that tin: accused-petitioner are facing trial and enquiry since 1963 and that taking into consideration the protracted nature of the investigations and trial, the ends of justice would be met by imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each on Chandmal and Kanhaiyalal. The appeal of these two accused petitioners before the learned Sessions Judge, Merta failed and was accordingly dismissed.It has been contended that the accused-petitioner Chandmal has expired and the present revision petition has been filed on behalf of Kanhaiyalal alone. It has been contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner Kanhaiyalal that the sentence of fine is too heavy and deserves to be suitably reduced. 3. Shri Acharya, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has contended that the accused-petitioner was found guilty for an offence under Section 406 I.P.C. in which case a substantive sentence should also have been awarded. 4. We have carefully considered the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor. The two courts below have concurrently held that on the facts and circumstances of the case, an offence under Section 406 I.P.C. has been found established against the present accused-petitioner. The contents on of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that certain receipts regarding payment of some amount out of the alleged misappropriated amount of Rs. The two courts below have concurrently held that on the facts and circumstances of the case, an offence under Section 406 I.P.C. has been found established against the present accused-petitioner. The contents on of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that certain receipts regarding payment of some amount out of the alleged misappropriated amount of Rs. 514/- have not been looked, does not lead us to anywhere even if for argument sake the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner is accepted, the too it is established beyond any shadow of doubt that the accused petitioners did not commit any offence of criminal breach of trust atleast for the sum of Rs. 1089-56 ever if this amount to be taken to be correct, then too the learned lower courts ought to have made substantive sentence against the accused-petitioner as the matter is as old as the year of 1963, we refrain from sentencing the accused-petitioner Kanhaiyalal to a substantive sentence. However, we do not feel inclined to reduce the quantum of fine, which has been inflicted by the two courts below. Under these circumstances the revision filed by the accused/petitioner Kanhaiyalal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.As regards the revision filed by the State for enhancement of the sentence, we would like to observe that one of the accused-petitioners Chandmal has already expired. The measure part appear to have been played and committed the offence of criminal breach of trust by Chandmal and not by the present accused-petitioner Kanhaiyalal. As already stated earlier, the offence is alleged to have been committed somewhere in the year 1963 and it would be too harsh to enhance the sentence and sentence the accused-petitioner. The request of the State for enhancing the sentence of the accused-Kanhaiyalal, therefore, does not appear to be justified. 5. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any substance in the revision filed on behalf of the State for enhancing the sentence of the accused Kanhaiyalal. Accordingly the revision of the State is also dismissed. 6. As a result therefore, both these revision petitions are dismissed. A copy of this order be placed on each file.Revision Dismissed. *******