Judgment A. K. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. ( 2 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 1st April, 1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagour in Criminal Appeal No. 115/84 affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagour in Criminal Original case No. 384/76. By his judgment dated 29th Sept. 1984 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and undergo further simple imprisonment for three months for default in payment of fine. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the offence under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out, and therefore, conviction of the petitioner under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code is against law. It is further submitted by him that if the act of the petitioner is held to be covered by Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, the conviction of the petitioner would be barred by limitation in view of Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is further submitted by him that if the conviction of the petitioner is maintained, the sentence imposed on him is harsh and in view of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, the petitioner is entitled to be released or probation. ( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the lower Courts. ( 5 ) I have carefully considered the rival arguments and perused the record. The facts of the case may be briefly summarised as below :- ( 6 ) IT appears that Mangi Lal, Moti Ram, Hari Ram and Ganpat Singh submitted a report in writing before the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur, in which they alleged that they were members of Gram Shahkari Samiti, Jayal (District Nagour) and Shri Poonam Chand, the accused, at whose instance they had become members of the Gram Shahkari Samiti, described himself as Secretary and Manager of the Gram Shahkari Samiti, Jayal. It was further stated that Moti Ram took a loan of Rs. 1000/-, Hari Ram took a loan of Rs. 1000/ -. Ganpat Singh took a loan of Rs. It was further stated that Moti Ram took a loan of Rs. 1000/-, Hari Ram took a loan of Rs. 1000/ -. Ganpat Singh took a loan of Rs. 500/- and Mangi Lal took a loan of Rs. 130/- from the said Gram Shahkari Samiti, Jayal and a sum of Rs. 1112. 50 was paid to Poonam Chand against receipt No. 37809, dated 14-6-1971, a sum of Rs. 1000/- was paid by Hari Ram to Poonam Chand against receipt No. 37809 dated 30-1-1971, a sum of Rs. 545/- was paid by Ganpat Singh to Poonam Chand against receipt No. 37843 dated 14-6-1971 and Mangilal paid a sum of Rs. 160/- to Poonam Chand against receipt dated 22-1-1971. It was further alleged in the First Information Report that in spite of the fact that the above payments had been made to Poonam Chand, who described himself as Secretary and manager of the Gram Shahkari Samiti, Jayal, all the four complainants received notices issued by the Nagaur Central Co-operative Bank demanding the arrears of principal as well as the interest. Mangi Lal was asked to deposit Rs. 800/- principal and Rs. 360/- interest, total Rs. 1160/- and the other three complainants were also asked to pay the principal and interest. It was further alleged that Mangi Lal had taken a loan of Rs. 130/- only, but the principal amount shown to be due against him was Rs. 800/ -. On receiving the notices from the Nagaur Central Cooperative Bank, the complainants drew the attention of the Gam Shahkari Samiti, and the Bank to the fact that they had paid the amount to Poonam Chand, but no relief was made available to the complainants, therefore, they submitted the First Information Report alleging the commission of criminal misappropriation by Poonam Chand. On 9th Feb. 1976, four receipts which were alleged to have been issued by Poonam Chand and some documents were produced before the police by Moti Ram and thereafter, the police registered the case under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and conducted investigation. After usual investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet under Section 173 in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nagour. Charges under Sections 420/408 and 201/424 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against Poonam Chand who pleaded not guilty to the charges. After usual investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet under Section 173 in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nagour. Charges under Sections 420/408 and 201/424 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against Poonam Chand who pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution examined Moti Ram P. W. 1, Hari Ram P. W. 2, Mangilal P. W. 3, Mangi Lal P. W. 4, Ganpat Singh P. W. 5, Prem Das, P. W. 6, Satish Chandra P. W. 7, Nenu Ram P. W. 8, Megha Ram P. W. 9, Natha Ram P. W. 10, Sayan Mal P. W. 11, Bheem Singh, P. W. 12, Diwan Singh P. W. 13, and Nav Prasad P. W. 14, in support of the prosecution case. ( 7 ) ACCUSED Poonam Chand was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He did not examine any witness in defence. During the trial the case was transferred to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur. After concluding the trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur convicted the accused petitioner under Sections 420 and 408 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted him of the charges under Sections 201 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 250/- and to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months for default in payment of fine for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and nine months, and a fine of Rs. 300/- and rigorous imprisonment for three months for default in payment office imposed under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 8 ) THE accused petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of Sessions. The appeal was decided by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagaur. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagour acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, but maintained his conviction under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 300/- and to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months for default in payment of fine. 300/- and to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months for default in payment of fine. ( 9 ) THE first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that offence under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out by the facts proved by evidence, because, the petitioner was not the Manager of the Gram Shahkari Samiti, Jayal when he received money from the complainants. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that it was proved by the prosecution evidence that the accused petitioner was working as the Manager of the Gram Shahkari Samiti and in that capacity he had received the amounts from the complainants. It is to be seen whether the finding arrived at by the two courts below that the accused petitioner was working as a Manager of the Shahkari Samiti is so perverse or unreasonable as deserves to be interfered with in this revision. ( 10 ) BHIM Singh P. W. 2, has deposed that he was the General Manger of Shahakari Samiti, Nagaur on 17th Feb. 1976 and at that time Punam Chand was not working as the "vyasthapak" of Shahakari Samiti. The statement of this witness does not help the accused. The statement is relating to 17-2-1976, whereas the alleged crime was committed in the year 1971 when the accused received the principal and the interest from the persons, who lodged the First Information Report, Natha Ram P. W. 10 has deposed that he was the Chairman of Shahakari Samiti one or two years ago and at that time Punam Chand was the "vyasthapak" of the Shahakari Samiti, but he was removed from his office two or three years before the statement of this witness was recorded in Court. Thus, Natha Ram, P. W. 10 has clearly stated that the accused Punam Chand had worked as a Vyasthapak of the Shahakari Samiti. Megha Ram, PW. 9, who was a member of the Shahkari Samiti has testified that Punam Chand was the Vyasthapak of the Shahakari Samiti at the time when Nanu Ram, Nathu Ram Mangilal and Prem Das were the members of the Shahakari Samiti. This witness has not been cross examined at all. Nenu Ram PW. Megha Ram, PW. 9, who was a member of the Shahkari Samiti has testified that Punam Chand was the Vyasthapak of the Shahakari Samiti at the time when Nanu Ram, Nathu Ram Mangilal and Prem Das were the members of the Shahakari Samiti. This witness has not been cross examined at all. Nenu Ram PW. 8 has stated on oath that the accused had worked in the Shahakari Samiti for a period of four years and during that period he collected money and maintained the records. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness. Mangilal P. W. 4, Mangilal P. W. 3, Hari Ram P. W. 2 and Moti Ram P. W. 1 have deposed that the accused Punam Chand worked as Vyasthapak of the Shahakari Samiti and that he used to collect money. In his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused Punam Chand has clearly admitted that he used to collect money. In view of the evidence produced by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the concurrent findings of the learned Chief judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge are unreasonable or perverse. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that in the year 1971 the accused Punam Chand was working for the Gram Shahkari Samiti and he used to collect money from the debtors. ( 11 ) THE statements, of Moti Ram P. W. 1, Hari Ram P. W. 2, Mangi Lal P. W. 3, Mangi Lal, P. W. 4 have not been shaken in cross-examination and their testimony clearly proves that the accused Punam Chand collected the money from the debtors by representing himself as a Vyasthapak of the Gram Shahkari Samiti. It is therefore, proved that the accused Punam Chand collected Rs. 1,112. 50 from Moti Ram and issued the receipt for the same on 14th June, 1971 and collected Rs. 1000/- from Hari Ram and issued the receipt on 30th Jan. 1971 and collected Rs. 160/- from Mangilal and issued the receipt for the same on 22nd Jan. 1971. The prosecution has further proved that the amount collected by the accused was not deposited in the Bank, and therefore, above named debtors were served the notices demanding principal as well as interest from them. 1971 and collected Rs. 160/- from Mangilal and issued the receipt for the same on 22nd Jan. 1971. The prosecution has further proved that the amount collected by the accused was not deposited in the Bank, and therefore, above named debtors were served the notices demanding principal as well as interest from them. In my opinion the concurrent finding of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional District and Sessions Judge about criminal mis-appropriation committed by the accused Punam Chand is justified by evidence on record and cannot be disturbed. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code is justified and deserves to be maintained. So far as sentence is concerned, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has imposed the sentence of six months. The offence was committed in the year 1971 about 25 years have passed since the commission of offence. Having regard to the quantum of sentence imposed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, and other circumstances of the case, no useful purpose would be served by sending the accused petitioner to Jail. The interest of justice would be served by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period during which he remained in judicial custody during trial and the amount of fine deserves to be increased to Rs. 5000/ -. The revision petition is partly allowed. Conviction of the petitioner under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained, but the sentence is altered. The petitioner is hereby sentenced to imprisonment for the period, he remained in custody during the trial and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for default in payment of fine. The accused petitioner is hereby given 30 days to deposit the fine in the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagaur. In case of default in payment of fine, the learned District and Sessions Judge Merta will issue non-bailable warrant of arrest to compel the appearance of the petitioner and after his appearance commit him to Jail so that he may serve out the sentence awarded to him. Order accordingly.