JUDGMENT 1. - The applicant-Mahavir Singh has been convicted for offence u/s. 409 IPC and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. He has also been convicted for offence u/s. 467 IPC and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. He has further been convicted for offence u/s. 471 IPC and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. The learned Magistrate has directed that all the sentences will run separately. Thus, in fact it comes to 6 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 3,000/- fine. I do not find any justified reason not to direct the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The petitioner was the Postman at the Post Office, Dulrasar. It is alleged that he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 6,217/- by not making payment of the Money Order to one Smt. Suraj Kanwar W/o Ranjeet Singh. The prosecution succeeded in establishing the charges against him. The finding recorded by the trial Court has been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu. The learned counsel has not challenged the finding of conviction for offences u/ss. 409, 467 & 471 IPC. He, however, submits that the sentences awarded is excessive. 3. It appears from the order of the trial Court that the petitioner has refunded the amount with 2% interest. A sum of Rs. 7,212/- has been deposited on 23.4.1993. He is also facing trial since 1992. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice would meet if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. 4. Consequently, the revision application is partly allowed. The sentence awarded for offence u/ss. 409, 467 & 471 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner has undergone a sentence of about 15 days. The sentence on all the counts is to run concurrently. However, the fine on all the three counts is increased to Rs. 3,000/-. Thus, in total the petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs. 9,000/- as a fine. Out of Rs. 9,000/-, Rs. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner has undergone a sentence of about 15 days. The sentence on all the counts is to run concurrently. However, the fine on all the three counts is increased to Rs. 3,000/-. Thus, in total the petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs. 9,000/- as a fine. Out of Rs. 9,000/-, Rs. 6,000/- shall be paid to Smt. Suraj Kanwar. The trial Court will ensure that the amount of Rs. 7,212/- deposited on 23.4.1993 and the fine of amount of Rs. 6,000/- is paid to Smt. Suraj Kanwar. The petitioner shall be released forthwith. One month's time is granted for depositing the amount. In case the amount is not deposited within a period of one month, this order modifying on the point of sentence shall stand vacated and the sentence awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court shall remain intact.Revision petition partly allowed. *******