ORDER V.K. Bali, J. (Oral) - By this common order I propose to decide two connected criminal revisions bearing No. 7 of 1989 (Chatar Singh v. State of Haryana) and 2114 of 1988 (Ram Kanwar v. State of Haryana), as both those revisions emanate from the common order recorded by the learned Magistrate as also learned Additional Sessions Judge. 2. Brief facts of the case reveal that case under Sections 408, 467, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code came to be registered against both petitioners, named above, on the basis of letter dated 25.1.1983, which was sent by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rohtak to the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak. Broadly, allegations in the letter were to be effect that it has since been reported by the Inspector, Co-operative Societies/Executor Officer, Central Co-operative Bank, Kalanaur, that petitioner Ram Kanwar, Secretary of Gudhan Harijan Cooperative Agricultural Services Society had embezzled a sum of Rs. 39,600 from the funds of the society. He has shown this amount as loan issued to 46 members of the society on 1.8.1970 in the cash book but no Temsauq were got filled by him. Registered notices were served upon Ram Kanwar by the Inspector on 17.1.1972 and from the office of the Assistant Registrar on 16.1.1972, but he did not file any reply. From the facts, as stated above, it is evident that he did not want to deposit the amount in the Central Cooperative Bank and that he was guilty of offence under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the letter aforesaid, investigations followed resulting into booking both the petitioners for the offences, as detailed above. Ram Kanwar was charged under Sections 120-B, 408, 467 and 471 Indian Penal Code whereas Chatar Singh was also charge-sheeted separately under the same Sections. After resultant trial, the learned Magistrate found both the petitioners guilty under Sections 408, 467 and 471 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the periods, as detailed below :- Charges under Sections Sentence awarded Imprisonment Fine 408 Indian Penal Code Two years rigorous imprisonment (in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months). Rs. 1,000/- 467 Indian Penal Code Two years rigorous imprisonment (in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months). Rs. Rs. 1,000/- 467 Indian Penal Code Two years rigorous imprisonment (in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months). Rs. 1,000/- 471 Indian Penal Code One year rigorous imprisonment (in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for three months). Rs. 500/- 3. Aggrieved, petitioners filed separate appeals before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, which were dismissed by a common order dated 28.11.1988. It is against this order that two revisions, referred to above, have been filed. 4. Mr. Virinder Singh, learned counsel representing Chatar Singh, petitioner in revision No. 7 of 1989, vehemently contends that since Chatar Singh has been acquitted for the offence under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code, the prosecution was required to prove offences under Sections 408, 467 and 471 Indian Penal Code independently against him, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Quite to the contrary, if the statements of prosecution witnesses are examined, it would straightaway transpire that Ram Kanwar, Secretary, petitioner in the other revision, was responsible inasmuch as he has filled bogus temsauq and disbursed the loan to non-existing persons. In other words, by filing temsuq in the manner aforesaid, he had misappropriated the amount. It has further been urged that the case started with the registration of an FIR on the basis of letter, referred to above, which, too, was only against Ram Kanwar and it is only at the investigation stage that Chatar Singh was also involved in this case. 5. There appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel. Besides the fact that FIR came to be registered on the basis of letter, referred to above, wherein all allegations are against Ram Kanwar, it does appear from the statement of the main prosecution witness PW-3, namely, Surjit Singh that it is Ram Kanwar only, who had not disbursed the amount inasmuch as he had filled in bogus temsauq and misappropriated the amount. The significant portions of his statement translated into English run thus :- "I made an enquiry with regard to Rs. 40,000/- and in the said enquiry, I came to know that the said amount remained with the accused Ram Kanwar, present in court....." "The record of the society was with Ram Kanwar and he alone was its custodian..........." "Withdrawal of Rs. 40,000/- and in the said enquiry, I came to know that the said amount remained with the accused Ram Kanwar, present in court....." "The record of the society was with Ram Kanwar and he alone was its custodian..........." "Withdrawal of Rs. 40,000/- in this case was made by the Cashier but in the cash book the entries are in the hand of Ram Kanwar. The aforesaid amount was handed over to Ram Kanwar by the Cashier, which is proved from the cash book. The entries in the cash book at page 2 in all have been done by accused Ram Kanwar, who has signed it also........" "The accused Ram Kanwar has entered an amount of Rs. 40,000/- at page 2 at point A...." 6. On a Court question as to whether the witness could show from the record as to how Cashier had given this amount to Ram Kanwar and by which document, the witness answered as follows :- "Record, Ex.P-1, used to remain with Ram Kanwar, in which he has entered Rs. 40,000/- in his own hand and he has shown fictitious disbursement of the loan at points A to B and distributed it and then he has signed the same. He has also signed on the balance amount as well, which is further certified from the books." 7. In the examination-in-chief, this witness also stated that certification regarding the identity of the loanee had been given by Ram Kanwar accused and signatures of which, the witness further stated, he identifies. 8. No doubt, insofar as withdrawal of Rs. 40,000/- is concerned, petitioner Chatar Singh is also responsible for the same but insofar as disbursement of the amount to fictitious persons or in other words, to himself is concerned, the only person, against whom evidence has been led, is Ram Kanwar. It is significant to mention here that both petitioners have been acquitted for the offence under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. Once evidence with regard to conspiracy has been disbelieved and against which order no appeal or revision has been filed, petitioner Chatar Singh could be pinned down only if the prosecution was to lead evidence both with regard to withdrawal of amount and disbursement of the same, which is not the case. Insofar as, thus, Chatar Singh is concerned, he deserves to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. 9. Insofar as, thus, Chatar Singh is concerned, he deserves to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. 9. Insofar as revision of Ram Kanwar is concerned, Mr. H.N. Mehtani vehemently contends that there is no evidence against him (Ram Kanwar) as well but he has not been able to point out from the voluminous evidence that came to be recorded in this case that there is no evidence against him with regard to withdrawal of the amount and disbursement of the same. Insofar as, thus, his revision is concerned, there is no merit. Mr. Mehtani further contends that the occurrence pertains to 1970, the trial commenced in 1979 and a period of 30 years had gone by and the petitioner had already undergone the agony of protracted trial and, therefore, he should be dealt with leniency and deserves to be let off on probation under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. With a view to have advantage of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, Mr. Mehtani, however, contends that the amount said to have been embezzled has since been deposited by the petitioner. 10. The contention of learned counsel can be accepted only half way through. Even though petitioner might have deposited the amount, said to have been embezzled, and had undergone the agony of protracted trial, in a matter of embezzlement he cannot be let off on probation. 11. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if, while maintaining the order of conviction, sentence of petitioner Ram Kanwar is reduced to one years rigorous imprisonment. He shall also pay fine, which has been imposed upon him by the learned trial Court, failing which he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment, as ordered by the Courts below. With the modification in the manner, as indicated above, insofar as revision of Ram Kanwar is concerned, the same is partly allowed. Insofar as revision of Chatar Singh is concerned, the same is allowed. Petition allowed.