JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, dated 8th August, 1978, convicting the petitioner under Section 406 IPC. The petitioner was challaned under Section 409, IPC, and was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer under section 409, IPC. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted the petitioner from the offence under Section 409, IPC, but convicted him under Section 409, IPC, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months, and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The facts of the case briefly narrated are, that petitioner Shiv Kumar was working as accountant in the office of the Superintendent of the Police, Ajmer. His duty was to maintain accounts and to receive the cash. On 13th January, 1966, LC Khubchand deposited a sum of Rs. 165.50 with petitioner Shiv Kumar. This amount was towards the sports-fund, and was sent by the SHO, Kotwali, Ajmer to the office of the Superintendent of Police. Shivkumar received this amount, and gave a receipt to Khubchand. This amount was not deposited with the Government by the accused petitioner, and was not entered in the cash-book. It is alleged that hence, he has misappropriated the said amount. On 13th January, 1969, the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer, sent a report, Ex. P. 4 to the SHO, Civil Lines, Ajmer; and on this report, a case was registered against petitioner Shiv Kumar. After investigation, a challan was submitted in the court of Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer (East). The accused petitioner remained absconded, but later on he appeared before the court on 13th April, 1970. 3. The learned Magistrate framed a charge under Section 409, IPC. against the accused-petitioner. The accused pleaded not guilty. The contention of the accused was that the said amount was, no doubt, paid to him by Khubehand, but, he had paid this amount to cashier Rajendraprasad. It was also stated by him that he had asked Khubchand to take a Pucca-Receipt from cashier Rajendraprasad. He has, no doubt, admitted that he had issued Kachcha-Receipt to Khubchand. The contention of the accused was that the said amount was, no doubt, paid to him by Khubehand, but, he had paid this amount to cashier Rajendraprasad. It was also stated by him that he had asked Khubchand to take a Pucca-Receipt from cashier Rajendraprasad. He has, no doubt, admitted that he had issued Kachcha-Receipt to Khubchand. In defence, the accused- petitioner has examined some witnesses also. According to the petitioner, he has not mis-appropriated any amount. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after concluding the trial found the accused guilty under Section 409, IPC, and convicted him accordingly. But, in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted him of the charge under Section 409, IPC, and instead, he convicted him of the offence under Section 405, . IPC, and sentenced him as mentioned above. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the receipt of the amount of Rs. 165.50 by the petitioner from Khubchand is not disputed. It is also admitted that he had given a Kachcha-Receipt to Khubchand. He had asked Khubchand to take a Pucca-Receipt because, on that date, the cashier was not in the office. The amount was paid to the cashier by him, and it was for Khubchand lot take a receipt from Rajendraprasad cashier. The prosecution has examined Rajendra Prasad as PW 4. who has denied to have received the amount of Rs. 165.50 from accused Shiv Kumar. No doubt, there is a statement of PW 1 Mohansingh who has stated that the amount of Rs. 165.50 was received by the accused petitioner from Khubchand; and who had given a receipt to him, and then he had paid the said amount to Rajendraprasad who was concerned clerk to receive this amount. This was an oral statement of Mohan Singh, to support the contention of the accuse petitioner. The petitioner was accountant in the office, and Rajendraprasad was working under him as a cashier. Therefore, it was the duty of the petitioner also to see and verify that when he paid the money to Rajendraprasad, it was entered in cash-book, and again, it was his duty, to have a Pucca-Receipt from Rajendra Prasad, who was the dealing clerk. The petitioner was accountant in the office, and Rajendraprasad was working under him as a cashier. Therefore, it was the duty of the petitioner also to see and verify that when he paid the money to Rajendraprasad, it was entered in cash-book, and again, it was his duty, to have a Pucca-Receipt from Rajendra Prasad, who was the dealing clerk. The argument in this regard was that it was for Khubchand to have taken a receipt from Rajendraprasad, and if receipt was not given to him, to have brought this matter to the notice of the Superintendent Police or the accused-petitioner; and because this fact was not brought to the notice of the accused or the higher authorities by Khubchand, the presumption which was drawn by the accused that the amount had been duly deposited, should be believed. 6. I do not agree with this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. One thing is that DW. 1 Mohansingh has not been believed by the learned trial court. Apart from this, this type of oral evidence can be created at any time. Without commenting anymore about this witness Mohan Singh, I place no reliance on li statement, and agree with the view of the learned trial Court. It was not the duty of Khubchand to have got verified that the amount was properly deposits by Rajendraprasad cashier in the cash-book. He had paid the money to the who was a higher authority than the cashier, from whom he had received proper receipt. So, the duty of Khubchand was over. Why should he have both about the Pucca-Receipt and seen whether Rajendraprasad Cashier had deposited to money or not ? Accountant is the in-charge of the accounts-section. So, it was duty of the accused to have seen that his subordinate staff, i.e , the cashier, Rajendra Prased, who was the proper person dealing with the sports-fund, and to whom the money was paid by him, had properly accounted for the money and deposited it the cash-book or not. Because Khubchand had not approached the cashier or to higher authorities for the Pucca-Receipt, did not relieve the accountant-petitioner this responsibility. Hence, I do not agree that accountant Shivkuraar is not responsible for this money. Because Khubchand had not approached the cashier or to higher authorities for the Pucca-Receipt, did not relieve the accountant-petitioner this responsibility. Hence, I do not agree that accountant Shivkuraar is not responsible for this money. According to him, it was paid by him to Rajendraprasad cashier But, this is only an oral contention, and there is no testimony to prove this payment of money. So, I do not believe that the amount had been paid to Rajendraprasad cashier. According to the admission of the accused, the amount of Rs. 165.50 been entrusted to him, and as the said amount had not been deposited in the cash, is clear that it had been misappropriated by him. The learned Additional Session Judge, therefore, has not committed any error in finding and holding him guilty of the offence under Section 406, IPC. The conviction of the accused-petitioners is then fore, maintained. 7. It was then argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the incident had taken place in the year 1966, and the report was field in the year 1969; an the petitioner has been dismissed from the service, and that, he has been in jail about 12 days, so, a lenient view may be taken. 8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that this is a serious case where the amount has been misappropriated; and this amount related to the sports-fund, deducted from the salaries of the constable, who are very poor persons, and as such, the offence is of very serious nature, and so, no lenient view should be taken. 9. I have considered this argument. No doubt this amount was deducted from the salaries of the persons of the rank of constables who are very low-paid employees, and if their amount is embezzled, certainly, it pinches every employee, whoever contributed to this sports-fund. So, the seriousness of the matter cannot be doubted, but, the aspect is that the services of the accused-petitioner have been terminated and he is no more in service, and the judgment in this case was pronounce the year 1978, and if after a lapse of 6 years, the petitioner is again arrested and sent back to jail to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment awarded to him by the learned lower court, would certainly result in great hardship to him. I take into consideration more this aspect that the petitioner has been terminated from service, and he is no more in service. So, if in such circumstances, after a lapse of about 6 years, the petitioner is again sent back to jail to serve the sentence of imprisonment, would result in hardship not only to him, but also to his whole family. He has been sentenced to a fine of Rs, 200/- by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The mount involved in this case is also very petty in nature, i.e., only Rs. 165.60. There nothing on the record to show that he deposited the entrusted amount. So, in such I think it is just and proper to increase the amount of fine from 200/- to Rs. 500/-. 10. In the result, the revision petition is partly accepted. The conviction of the petitioner, Shivkumar, under Section 406, IPC. is confirmed and maintained. But the sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is reduced to Ike period already undergone by him. However, his sentence of fine of Rs. 200/- is enhanced to Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Two months' time is granted to him to deposit the mount of fine in the trial court, failing which, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer, shall take steps to arrest the accused-petitioner and send him to jail, to undergo the sentence, awarded to him by this Court. The previous bail-bonds of the accused-petitioner, are hereby discharged. *******