JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Parmanand has been convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar for offences under section 408 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment to 4 years rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one years rigorous imprisonment. 2. The finding of the Additional sessions judge on the basis of the evidence adduced in the case is that Parmanand received Rs. 18,619/50 P. on behalf of the Cooperative Society and out of which he deposited Rs. 2,500/-in the Central Cooperative Bank at siker and retained the remainder of Rs. 16.119/50P. with him The above conviction has been challenged in this appeal by the accused. The accused was cashier of Sankhu Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti and this mis-appropriation was done by the cashier between 14th March, 1963 to 26th June, 1963. 3. Mr. Tibrewal after narrating the facts of the case very fairly and frankly concentrated on question of sentence. It was pointed out that though the conviction of the accused cannot be challenged now in view of the trial but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the accused should be released on the sentence already undergone. 4. The circumstances on which Mr. Tibrewel has placed reliance in support of his plea are as under: (1) That the offence is alleged to be of 1965 now we are in 1981,which means that a period of about 17 years have passed during this protected trial pendency of the appeal. According to Mr. Tibrewal the accused all through the 17 years has remained in terrible mental agony and torture which is much more than the agony of the sentences itself if he would have been required to under go immediately after occurrence. (2) The accused happened to be discharging the function of a cashier in cooperative society which as managed by Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other senior persons. Mr. Tibrewal read over before the statement of pw. 4, pw. 5, pw. 8, pw. 9, pw. 10, pw. 11, pw. 12, pw. 13, pw. 14, pw. 15, pw. 22 to show that when the payments were received back from loanees, the amount was taken by parmanand in the presence of Nanu Ram and Ganpat singh. Nanu Ram happens to be the president and Jagdeva Ram happens to be vice president of the society. 9, pw. 10, pw. 11, pw. 12, pw. 13, pw. 14, pw. 15, pw. 22 to show that when the payments were received back from loanees, the amount was taken by parmanand in the presence of Nanu Ram and Ganpat singh. Nanu Ram happens to be the president and Jagdeva Ram happens to be vice president of the society. On the above bedrock of facts which became patent in the cross examination Mr. Tibrewal pointed out that this is a case where the head had been left and tale has been caught when the amount was taken jointly by president and vice president and the secretary, how can the cashier who was the lowest in the ladder retain the entire amount himself without active convenance and collusion of high ups argued Mr. Tibrewal. In view of this special feature of the case it was submitted that sentences undergone is sufficient and would meet ends of justice. (3) Mr. Tibrewal also pointed out that on account of pendency of this case and during the trial the accused remained out of employment for such a long period which has financially ruined him. 5. The factual aspect of the case is put by Mr. Tibrewal was not contradicted by Mr. Mathur, public prosecutor except that he pointed out that there are number of letters written by accused in which he has admitted the commission of this offence and promised to pay back the amount. 6. In view of the above submissions of Mr. Tibrewal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mathur, learned public prosecutor, I am not inclined to mention in detail the facts of the case and the evidence adduced on the points involved in the case which find place in detail in the judgement of the additional sessions judge. All that can be said is that do not find any infirmity in the judgment of additional sessions judge, so far as finding about guilt of the accused under section 408 I.P.C. is concerned and the same is therefore, up held. 7. So far as the sentence is concerned Mr. Mathur fairly and frankly submitted that it is in the discretion of the court and the court may in the peculiar features of this case reduce it suitably, though he did not agree to reduction of the sentences to that already undergone. 7. So far as the sentence is concerned Mr. Mathur fairly and frankly submitted that it is in the discretion of the court and the court may in the peculiar features of this case reduce it suitably, though he did not agree to reduction of the sentences to that already undergone. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the question of sentence and the circumstances shown by Mr. Tibrewal which have not been refuted by Mr. Mathur. Undoubtedly a period of 17 years and that also at the age of the accused is most significant. The mental agony which an accused faces during the trial of offences of breach of trust or appropriation or offences under prevention of corruption Act is too acute to be described. The society looks with hatred such accused persons and rightly so as they are treated as antisocial elements and parasites of society. The offences being of moral turpitude, the accused mostly collapse under the weight of self condemnation in these cases and feeling respondent for having committed such offences. Cases are not wanting where due to terrible mental shock of the accused loosing the entire career of life and are found to be completely rack on ultimate termination of protected trial. That being so the circumstances of the pendency of litigation of 17 years, facing protected trial by the accused is undoubtedly relevant circumstance to be considered for purpose of reduction of sentence in this appeal. 8. The submission of Mr. Tribrewal that there was many important persons, the president and the vice president and secretly of the society who were either responsible for this defalcation or were in collusion with the accused is a matter on which no finding can be given by this court. Whatever the case may be and whosoever out of the president, vice president or secretary be responsible for this defalcations or connivance in it, can safely be assumed to be plausible and prima facie correct that the accused who was lowest at the ladder in the cooperative society set up, could not have defalcated such a huge amount spreading for a long period and coming from different sources of loaners, unless if not all, at least few of the high ups were cooperating with him in this crime of the mis-appropriation of the amount of the society. The fact that they have been left without a scratch and stigma;and the accused is being condemned with stigma for an offence of moral turpitude, is certainly a speaking circumstance for being liberal in the matter or sentence. It would be useful here to take guidance from the valuable observations of their lordships of the supreme court in K. Damodaran v. the state of Travan-core cochin (A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 462) , where in it was observed : "Where there, is strong indication, on the evidence on record, that there were other and perhaps bigger persons involved in the fraud for which the accused was tried and they are not brought to book, the circumstances though it does not excuse or exonerate the accused from his guilt which has been established beyond reasonable doubt, has nevertheless, a bearing on the question of sentence." 9. In the instant case, the accused has under gone sentence of 8 months and 27 days as per the joint calculation of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned public prosecutor and which has also been confirmed by the endorsement on the warrant. The stigma of conviction for offences of moral turpitude would remain as recurring sentence not only against him but against family members also. The punishment is also in addition to the mental agony and torture of the protected trial and the pendency of the appeal both taken together in 17 years. In view of the above the substantive part of the sentence is concerned it is reduced to the period already undergone. But the accused will have to pay the fine already imposed upon him Rs. 2,000/- and failing which he would further undergone six months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant is allowed three months time to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,000/-, failing which the trial court would take appropriate steps to send him to jail for under going sentence of default. 10. The appeal is, therefore, partially accepted as indicated above.Appeal partly accepted. *******