G.M. LODHA, I. —This is a criminal revision petition under section 3 7 & 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and conviction dated 24.11.1981 passed by Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1980, maintaining the conviction of accused under sec. 420 and 468 IPC, but acquitting the accused under sec. 419 I.P.C. and also maintaining the sentence under sec 420 and 468 IPC for one years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 400/- and upheld the judgment and conviction dated 20.9.1980 passed by judicial Magistrate Nasirabad in Cr. Case No. 515/77. 2. The complaint filed by Shri P.C. Jain, Deputy Superintendent, Post Office, Ajmer on 2.7.1977 before the Judicial Magistrate disclosed that on Ram Swaroop had a Khata No. 205254 in the saving bank account in the post office of Nasirabad. He died and after that his wife Smt. Sushila Devi moved an application for withdrawal of Rs. 3142.50 through Satnali Post Office. It was found that on 26 4.74 Rs. 2,000/- and on 3.5.74 Rs. 1,000/-and on 22.7.74 Rs. 130/- was withdrawn by the accused after making forged signatures of Ram Swaroop on the withdrawal forms. 3. The trial court framed charges under Section 419, 420 and 468 IPC. However after the trial the Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 419, 420 and 468 IPC but in appeal the accused has been acquitted for 419 IPC. For the item of 1,000/- and Rs. 130/- also the accused has been acquitted. 4. The item, of Rs. 2,000/- has been proved to have been withdrawn by the accused on the basis of the forged signatures. 5. Mr. Tibrewal learned counsel for the accused has argued that the forgery has not been proved by the accused and therefore no conviction can be based without the evidence of forgery. He has also argued in the alternative that amount had been paid and therefore, the sentence must be reduced to already undergone. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the revision petition. According to him the accused had with-drawn the amount of a widow whose husband was in service. 7. The withdrawal has been made on the basis of forged application form, 8. I have gone through the relevant record referred to by learned counsel for the parties available here and also considered the arguments submitted by both of them. 9. According to him the accused had with-drawn the amount of a widow whose husband was in service. 7. The withdrawal has been made on the basis of forged application form, 8. I have gone through the relevant record referred to by learned counsel for the parties available here and also considered the arguments submitted by both of them. 9. There is no doubt that the withdrawal was based on the basis of a forged document and the accused withdrew the amount, therefore the acceptance of the evidence by the two lower courts is held to be justified. The submission of Mr. Tibrewal that because the witnesses who have proved the withdrawal could have also been accused or likely to be concerned with this amount and therefore they should not be believed, cannot be accepted. 10. Now coming to the question of sentence, I find that the offence committed by the accused being in service of withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 2,000/- in the case of the depositor is of serious nature. Ram Swaroop had a S.B. account and he died. The accused is an employee and such offence committed by him cannot be lightly ignored by minor punishment. Using of a forged document itself is an offence of a serious nature and more so when it is done by the accused himself, who is an employee in the department. The fact that the accused has paid the amount after the case was registered and during the course of the trial or earlier investigation is not enough for taking a liberal view. Mr. Tibrewal submits that in all the accused has remained in Jail for five days only and I am of the opinion that it would be a misplaced leniency if the prayer for reduction of sentence to the period undergone which is not even one month is accepted. The accused has already been dealt with leniently because the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court is One year and I do not find any extenuating circumstances or special circumstances to reduce it any more. The fact that the accused would loose his job on account of committing offence of 420 and 468 IPC cannot be a ground for giving punishment less than one year. 11. In the decision in Pyarelal Vs. The fact that the accused would loose his job on account of committing offence of 420 and 468 IPC cannot be a ground for giving punishment less than one year. 11. In the decision in Pyarelal Vs. Mahadeo (1), Honble Supreme Court considered the question of sentence in economic offences and a bench consisting of A.N. Ray Chief Justice, Paleker, Chandrachud and Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyar observed that the Indian conditions and the current in economic offences prolonged confinement is the best assurance of society protection in para No. 19 and 20 and 21 their Lordships considered the question of sentencing in criminal cases particularly when the offences are in the nature of economic offences and white collar crimes. The court observed that the courts should take stock of the social and personal faste features of the crime and the culprits. Their Lordships observed that the current criminal system is the weakest; when it comes to post conviction stage in India and the courts approach is to be socially informed and alive to personal lives. Reference was made to judgment of Ishwar Bas Vs. State of Punjab (2) in para 20 and then it was observed: "These economic offences committed by white collar criminals are unlikely to be dissuaded by the gentle probationary process. Neither casual provocation nor motive against particular against particular persons but planned profit making from numbers of consumers furnishes the incentive-not easily humanised by the repeutic probationary measures." 12. Then their Lordships discussed the Law Commission Report (47 report) and observed that the ultimate justification of all sentences is to protection of society. In this case the Honble Supreme Court criticise the trial court and observed as under in para 24 and 25: "The learned Magistrate we are constrained to observe has completely failed to appreciate the gravity of food offences when he imposed a aively negligible sentence of one hundred rupees fine. In a country where consumerism as a movement has not developed the common man is at the mercy of the vicious dealer. And when the primary necessaries of life are sold with spurious admixtures for making profit, his only protection is the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Court. If offenders can get away with it by payment of trivial fines, as in the present case, it brings the law into contempt and its enforcement a mockery. And when the primary necessaries of life are sold with spurious admixtures for making profit, his only protection is the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Court. If offenders can get away with it by payment of trivial fines, as in the present case, it brings the law into contempt and its enforcement a mockery. In this context, it is apposite to draw attention to measures taken in many advanced countries for the evolution of a rational and consistent policy of sentencing. Conferences between judges, magistrates and penal administrators are being organised with increasing frequency in England and in the United States. The 47th Report of the Law Commission has stressed the need for the programme because of the sentencing vagaries witnessed in our country. 25. Indeed, the education of the sentencing judge, particularly in the context of economic offences is a yawning gap in our criminal system and the near-escape of the accused before the trial court in this case, prevented only by the Criminal Revision to the High Court, permits us to observe that the magistracy in the country has yet to realise that there are occasions when an offender is so antisocial that his immediate and sometimes prolonged confinement is the best assurance of society physical protection." Or, we may add, even in less severe situations heavy enough fine to drive him and of the trade if he tried the trick again. There is injustice to the community the invisible but immense victim of the crime-in the courts misplaced sympathy for the culprit." 12. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the present one is the case when an employee employed in the department has committed Offence of 420 and 468 IPC by withdrawing the amount on the basis of a forged document, the sentence which has been imposed cannot be called severe. 13. Consequently, there is no option but to confirm the sentence imposed by the lower court. The revision application is therefore, dismissed.