JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sikar, dated 4th Aug. 78, upholding the conviction and the sentence passed by the CM, Sikar, vide his judgment dated 11th Aug. 75. The petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under section 409, IPC. and after the trial, the learned CJM found him guilty of the offence and sentenced him to 2 years' RI and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 9 months' SI. 2. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was working as Nazir-cum-Cashier in the court of SDM, Fatehpur. He was in charge of cash. The allegation is that he embezzled some amount. The collector, Sikar, lodged a report under section 409, IPC, at the police station, alleging that a sum of Rs. 2503.39 was found short in the double lock. On 30th October, 66, a sum of Rs. 3,478.39 should have been in the double lock. But, when it was opened, a sum of Rs. 975.00 was found therein. The cash-book which was maintained by the petitioner, was not produced before the SDM after 10th Feb. 66. The mode of embezzlement was shown to be that on 9th Feb. /36, he removed a sum of Rs. 1,665.00 for depositing it in the bank. Thereafter, he was to put Rs. 587.00 in the double-lock, out of which, he brought out a sum of Rs. 253.39 and further a sum of Rs. 840.30. Thus, in all, the petitioner embezzled a sum of Rs. 2,505.39. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it is not disputed that the petitioner was working as Nazir in the court of SDM, Fatehpur. It was also not disputed that the petitioner was a public servant. According to the learned counsel, there were two keys of the double-lock; one was with the petitioner, and the other was with the SDM, Fatehpur, and that, unless both the keys were used together, the double-lock could not have been opened. So, according to him, if there was any responsibility for the shortage of the amount in the double-lock, that was not only of the petitioner, but also of the SDM, Fatehpur. He argued that the SDM also should have been prosecuted, and that, alone the petitioner should not have been prosecuted and convicted of the offence under section 409, IPC. So, according to him, if there was any responsibility for the shortage of the amount in the double-lock, that was not only of the petitioner, but also of the SDM, Fatehpur. He argued that the SDM also should have been prosecuted, and that, alone the petitioner should not have been prosecuted and convicted of the offence under section 409, IPC. 4. I have considered this argument. The learned CJM has discussed in his judgment this argument; and I agree with his conclusion that no doubt, the SDM, Fatehpur, should also have been made accused in this case, but the responsibility of the petitioner being the Nazir, cannot be ruled out He was maintaining the cash-book and keeping the amount in the double-lock, in the safe. When he took out a sum of Rs. 1,665.00 for depositing in the bank, no doubt, both the keys must have been used, but, instead of depositing it in the bank, he embezzled it. Anyway, because the SDM has not been made accused in this case, the liability of the petitioner cannot be washed away. He being the Nazir, maintaining the cash-book and keeping the cash in the safe, was fully responsible for the amount. The learned CJM after discussing the entire evidence, has found that the amount was embezzled by the accused petitioner. This finding has been upheld by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sikar. So, there is concurrent finding about the embezzlement of the amount, by both the lower courts. I also agree with them. 5. There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of both the courts below. It has been established and proved that the petitioner has embezzled a sum of Rs. 1,505.39 which was in his custody as Nazir-cum-Cashier. 6. The learned counsel then argued that the case has been pending since 1966, and therefore, a lenient view may be taken in this matter. 7. I have considered this argument too. It is correct that the case relates to the year 1966. But the petitioner being a public servant had embezzled the sum of Rs. 2,505.39 from the safe. He was entrusted this amount, and one should not think that Government servant who is made responsible for the amount of the Government, can embezzle it. This is not a minor offence. It is correct that the case relates to the year 1966. But the petitioner being a public servant had embezzled the sum of Rs. 2,505.39 from the safe. He was entrusted this amount, and one should not think that Government servant who is made responsible for the amount of the Government, can embezzle it. This is not a minor offence. But, in view of the fact that the petitioner has been fined for this offence to a tune of Rs. 3,000/-, I feel that some lenient view should be taken while awarding him substantive sentence. Therefore, in this particular case, the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to I year. But, the sentence of fine is maintained. 8. The revision petition is, therefore, partly accepted. The conviction of the petitioner for offence under section 409, IPC, is maintained. But, he is sentenced tot year's RI only and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo 9 months' ST. The accused is on bail. The learned CJM, Sikar, is directed to issue warrant of arrest against petitioner Hanuwant Singh and send him to jail to undergo the sentence as awarded and modified by this Court.Revision partly allowed. *******