B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-accused who was working as a registered clerk to Advocates of this Court had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 6,835. 00 entrusted to him by the respondent No. 1-Advocate Shri C. M. Trivedi for the purpose of making payment of Court-fee stamp which amount, Advocate Shri C. M. Trivedi had received from his clients. * with misc. Criminal Application No. 733 of 1981 against the judgment passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 1980. ( 2 ) THE petitioner-accused was tried for the offence punishable under Secs. 406 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code ("code" for short) before the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The learned Chief Metropolitan magistrate found the petitioner-accused guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 408 of the Code and the petitioner-accused was ordered to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. 00 in default to further undergo 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-accused had challenged the aforesaid order before the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad and the learned addl. City Sessions Judge, has observed that, since the appeal is only against the sentence, it is not necessary for him to examine the legality of conviction. Even then, he had proceeded to consider the evidence of Advocate Shri C. M. Trivedi and found that the conviction recorded was on the basis of legal and reliable evidence and not on the admission of the accused after he had once pleaded not guilty to the charge and held that the conviction therefore, is legal and proper. However, after considering the contentions raised by the petitioneraccused before him, on the point of sentence, the learned Addl. City Sessions judge reduced the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of one year to 9 months rigorous Imprisonment and confirmed the sentence of fine imposed by the trial court and also confirmed the order conviction by his judgment and order dated 13/05/1981. ( 4 ) THE petitioner-accused has challenged the aforesaid order of sentence passed by the Courts below by filing Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 198 1/05/1981 before this Court. On 26/05/1981 this Court ordered to issue notice returnable on 1/07/1981 and at the request made by Mr. ( 4 ) THE petitioner-accused has challenged the aforesaid order of sentence passed by the Courts below by filing Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 198 1/05/1981 before this Court. On 26/05/1981 this Court ordered to issue notice returnable on 1/07/1981 and at the request made by Mr. Barot learned Advocate for the petitioner-accused he was permitted to convert that appeal into a Revision application. Accordingly, said appeal numbered as Criminal Revision Application no. 256 of 1981, i. e. the present petition. ( 5 ) IN the meantime, the petitioner-accused preferred Misc. Criminal application No. 733 of 1981 before this Court praying that, he may be released on bail, during the pendency and final disposal of this Criminal Revision application. On 16/06/1981 G. T. Nanavati, J. , granted the said application of the petitioner-accused for bail and ordered him to be released on bail. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, on 15/07/1981 G. T. Nanavati, J. , issued rule on this Revision application. ( 7 ) THIS Revision Application has been preferred by the petitioner-accused before this Court only against the order of sentence recorded by the Courts below, and it is urged that by now the petitioner-accused has fully paid up the amount to the complainant which he has misappropriated and the fact that the offence was committed as back as in the year 1975 and the fact that he has pleaded guilty for the offences with which he was charged and there was a hanging sword on his head since last 15 years and therefore, it will be in the interest of justice to said the petitioner-accused to undergo the sentence of 9 (nine) months and, therefore, by maintaining the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000. 00, the substantive order of sentence of 9 months rigorous Imprisonment be set aside by this Court. ( 8 ) MR. G. D. Bhatt learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 very vehemently urged that in any other case this Court may take a lenient view of the matter on the point of sentence, but this is not a case, wherein, any mercy can be shown to such an accused who has misappropriated the amount which he had received from the Advocates who had received the same from their clients for the purpose of paying the Court-fees. And, if this accused is dealt with lenientcy by this Court on the point of sentence, then many more clerks may dare to indulge in such type of practice of misappropriating the amount and, the Lower Appellate Court, while reducing the sentence from one years rigorous Imprisonment to 9 months Rigorous Imprisonment, has considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case. And merely because this Court has admitted the petition in 1981, which could not be heard till the end of the year 1990, because of many reasons, this should not become a ground to reduce the substantive sentence. 8 (1 ). Mr. S. T. Mehta, learned Addl. P. P. has also supported Mr. G. D. Bhatt on the point of sentence and submitted that, the substantive sentence should not be reduced by this Court. ( 9 ) IT may be noted that the petitioner-accused, while working as clerk of the Advocates who are practising in this Court, had misappropriated a huge amount of about Rs. 41,000. 00 which was paid to him by different Advocates for the purpose of making payment of Court-fees and, Advocate Shri C. M. Trivedi, respondent No. 1 herein had filed a complaint directly before the Metropolitan magistrates Court at Ahmedabad. Said complaint was sent to Navrangpura Police station by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate before whom, his statement was recorded and though he had promised to repay the amount which he has received from the Advocates, he has not paid back the amount, and, therefore, the Police filed a charge-sheet on 13/06/1978 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, ahmedabad. As, different amounts were misappropriated of different Advocates, it was felt desirable to have different charge-sheet and all charge-sheets were called together in the case of Shri Trivedi who was the complainant in the case and charge at Exh. 2 was framed. Initially, the accused did not plead guilty to the charge and made an attempt for settlement with the Advocates and took many adjournments and inspite of full opportunity was given to the accused, he has not made complete payment, therefore, Advocate Shri Trivedi was examined before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and relying upon the evidence of Advocate Shri Trivedi, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty. And, the learned Magistrate rightly observed that because of his dishonest intention, many cases are pending and, as he was working as a clerk to many advocates, and by misappropriating the amounts, he has put not only the client who had paid their amounts for payment of Court-fees to their Advocates, but also the Advocates in great difficulty. Therefore, the accused does not deserve any sympathy and such a sentence should be awarded so that an example may be set to others also, and accordingly, sentence of one years Rigorous imprisonment was imposed. However, said sentence of one years Rigorous imprisonment was reduced by the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge to 9 months rigorous Imprisonment, only on the ground that keeping the appellant in Jail for a period of one year may perhaps bring ruin to the family and may also bring aspiration of the children to ashes for no fault of their and the only fault that could be attributed is that they all the children of the father who designer the criminal act, did not know of the criminal activity to commit crimes, though the learned Judge observed that, he was not inclined to reduce the sentence even for a single day. But for the circumstances discussed by him, he has reduced the sentence. And, the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge has also turned down the request of awarding sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court for a weeks sentence by observing that it would ex facie appear to be ridiculous. ( 10 ) NOW, by the passage of the period of 9 years, the children of the petitioner-accused must have been brought up, except one circumstance, viz. , that there is a long interval of about 9 years from the date of reducing the sentence by the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge in the year 1981, there is no other circumstance in favour of the petitioner-accused to reduce the sentence. ( 11 ) THERE are cases and cases wherein lenient view can be taken but no leniency can be shown in the present case, since the petitioner-accused who was a clerk of Advocates and by keeping trust in him, the Advocates have engaged him as a clerk and paid the amounts of Court-fees, and if that amount has been misappropriated, then not only the Advocates but their innocent clients also suffered a lot. And, if in this case, the sentence is reduced, then perhaps, it may lose its own effect and ultimately it may affect this Institution (the High court) also, because clerk of an Advocate is also a very important limb of this institution. ( 12 ) I, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad sentencing the petitioneraccused to suffer 9 months Rigorous Imprisonment and confirming the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court. ( 13 ) THEREFORE, this Revision Application fails and is dismissed. Rule discharge. 13 (1 ). As the Revision Application is dismissed, the order of bail granted by this Court on 16/06/1981 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 733 of 1981 stands cancelled. The petitioner-accused to surrender to his bail forthwith. ( 14 ) MR. Barot learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-accused submitted at this stage that the petitioner-accused may be given time of four weeks to surrender to his bail. The request is granted. .