JUDGMENT 1. - This is revision petition against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur affirming the judgment passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Jaipur District, who convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 409 and 420 IPC for six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-on each count, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months R. I. in each case. 2. The petitioner was an employee of the United Commercial Bank, M. I. Road Branch, Jaipur and was posted as Special Assistant. Allegations against him are that he passed some cheques and withdrawal forms and thus cheating the Bank. He withdrew the money which he converted to his own use. Regarding the above allegation, a case was registered against him on 13th July, 19/8 and after investigation. C.B.I. submitted six charge-sheets as the amount was different period but on an application by accused, there was consolidation of cases and there remained two cases against the accused. In the both the cases the prosecution examined various witnesses and the learned Additional Chef Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused. In the another case, where the appeal No. 103/87 w s filed before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur, the accused was convicted only for offence under Section 409 IPC and sentenced to six months K. I. and a sum of Rs. 500/-. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment from six months R. I. to the rising of the Court but maintained the sentence of fine. In the present case also, the trial Court after recording the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 420 and 409 IPC and sentenced as indicated above which on appeal was confirmed. It is against this conviction add sentence that this revision petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing the case for some time and realising that there is concurrent finding of fact and question of law is not involvement, confined his arguments to the quantum of sentence. 4. Learned counsel for the CBI submitted that accused had already been dealt with leniently and this is not a case which warrants reduction of sentence. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to this aspect of the matter. 4. Learned counsel for the CBI submitted that accused had already been dealt with leniently and this is not a case which warrants reduction of sentence. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to this aspect of the matter. The accused-petitioner has been facing trial for last 11 years and it appears from the judgment that the accused has deposited the amount embezzled from the Bank and further that he has lost his job and thereby all the benefits which he could accrued from the services are also stood forfeited. The substantive sentence of imprisonment has already been reduced from six months to undergone in another case and I do not see any reason why the learned Additional Sessions Judge have discriminated between the two cases of identical nature. He had other wise jurisdiction to have made the sentence concurrent but he should not have used different standards in deciding identical cases. The accused is in jail for quite few days how and do not think any useful purpose is going to be served by detaining him in jail any (illegible) after 11 years of the occurrence . In the circumstances of the case and on the statement of the counsel that the entire money embezzled has been deposited in the Bank, I deem it proper to reduce the substantive sentence of imprisonment from six months R. I. to the period already undergone. Fine imposed is reduced from Rs. 5,000/- on each count to Rs. 2,500/- on each count. The revision petition is, thus, partly allowed with modification as stated above. *******