JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : The petitioner as accused faced trial for alleged commission of offences under Sections 409/467/468/471 of the I.P.C. in S.P.E. Case No.30/1991 in the Court of learned Addl. C.J.M.-cum-Spl. C.J.M. (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as Extra Departmental Sub-Post Master at Dala Sub-Post Office. The criminal action was set in motion on the basis of an F.I.R. filed, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner had misappropriated the money deposited in various Savings Bank Accounts, Recurring Deposit Accounts, Term Deposit Accounts of different account holders by manipulating postal records. It was also alleged that he dishonestly sold some Na¬tional Saving Certificates to different persons, but failed to account for the amount collected in the postal accounts. On the basis of an F.I.R., enquiry was conducted and charge sheet was submitted for commission of offences under Sections 409, 420 and 468 of the I.P.C. 2. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case got examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 48 documents. The accused got himself examined in his defence and exhibited three documents. Out of the P.Ws., P.W.1 was an account holder of the Post Office where the petitioner was the Extra-Departmental Sub-Post Master, P.W.2 was a postal employee before whom the Investigating Officer collected specimen handwriting of the petitioner, P.W.3 was the Ledger Assistant of Head Post Office, P.Ws 4 and 5 were the Sub-Divisional Inspectors during the years 1981-85 and 1985-88 re¬spectively, P.W.6 was the postal complaint Inspector, P.W.7 was the owner of the house where Dala Sub-Post Office was functioning and was also holder of National Saving Certificate for Rs.5,000/-, P.W.8 was an employee of Dala Sub-Post Office, P.W.9 was a Supervisor of Savings Bank Control Organisation, Jajpur, P.W.10 was an employee in the Irrigation Department, who had made en¬dorsement at the instance of accused, P.W.11 was a retired Postal Superintendent, P.W.12 was the I.O., P.W. 13 was the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, P.W.14 was the Sub-Post Master of Dala Sub-Post Office, who had succeeded the petitioner and P.W.15 was another official witness. 3. The petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. admitted that he was serving as Extra Departmental Sub-Post Master of Dala Sub-Post Office during the relevant period, i.e. 1982-87. He had further admitted that P.W.1 had deposited a sum of Rs.8,100/- on 01.12.1986, vide Ext.1. 3. The petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. admitted that he was serving as Extra Departmental Sub-Post Master of Dala Sub-Post Office during the relevant period, i.e. 1982-87. He had further admitted that P.W.1 had deposited a sum of Rs.8,100/- on 01.12.1986, vide Ext.1. He also admitted that P.W.1 on 3.6.87 had applied for duplicate pass book, vide Exts.3 and 4 and had also applied for withdrawal of some amount, vide Ext.5. According to him withdrawal of the amount was allowed. He also admitted that P.W.7 had purchased National Saving Certificate for Rs.5,000/- in the name of his minor daughter and receipt vide Ext.28 and Saving Certificate vide Ext.24 were issued to him. The petitioner also did not dis¬pute presentation of the said National Saving Certificate before him for premature withdrawal. But then he had denied to have forged the signatures of P.Ws.1 and 7 with motive to cheat the Postal Department. 4. The trial Court after threadbare analysis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, arrived at a conclusion that prosecution had successfully proved all the charges against the petitioner beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt and held him guilty of the charges under Sections 468/420/409 of the I.P.C. and convicted him thereunder. After considering the social back¬ground and gravity of the offences committed, the Court below sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for one year under Sec¬tions 468/420/409 of the I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to under further go R.I. for two months on each count and the sentences were directed to run consecutively. 5. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.116/16 of 2000 which was heard by learned Addl. Ses¬sions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Bhubaneswar. The appellate Court observed that the charge under Section 409 of the I.P.C. relating to misappropriation of Rs.4,000/- was not discussed by the trial Court. Though materials were available to show that he was guilty under Section 409 of the I.P.C. for misappropriation of a sum of Rs.8,100/- belonging to P.W.1 for which charge under Section 420 I.P.C. was framed. The appellate Court observed that the charge under Section 409 of the I.P.C. relating to misappropriation of Rs.4,000/- was not discussed by the trial Court. Though materials were available to show that he was guilty under Section 409 of the I.P.C. for misappropriation of a sum of Rs.8,100/- belonging to P.W.1 for which charge under Section 420 I.P.C. was framed. The appellate Court further ob¬served that the fate of the case depended on the evidence of P.W.1, but he was not cross-examined due to non-engagement of any lawyer and no State defence counsel was appointed under Sec¬tion 304 of the I.P.C. On the basis of such conclusions, the appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court and remanded the case for re-trial with a direction to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination and if required to give assistance of a State defence counsel to the appellant. Consequently, the order of conviction and sentence passed by trial Court was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal. Perusal of the judgment passed by the appellate Court reveals that the appeal was allowed in part and while remanding the case to the trial Court with regard to commission of offence under Section 409 of the I.P.C., the appellate Court set aside the judgment and the order of acquittal under Sections 468 and 420 of the I.P.C. and the said portion of the order became final. 6. After remand the matter was once again heard by the trial Court and the trial Court held the accused guilty under Section 409 of the I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him there-under. 7. Being aggrieved the petitioner once again preferred Crl.Appeal No.14/54 of 2003-04 which was heard by learned Addl.Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge (Vig), Bhubaneswar. The appellate Court discussed the evidence, both oral and documen¬tary, in extenso and relying upon the evidence of P.W.9 and the evidence of D.W.1 the appellate Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove entrustment of the amount in question to the petitioner. On the analysis of the evidence of P.Ws. 1,5,9,13 and 15, the appellate Court came to the conclusion that the accused had not taken the money received by him into account of the Post Office and that he had avoided to make en¬tries in the relevant register. On the analysis of the evidence of P.Ws. 1,5,9,13 and 15, the appellate Court came to the conclusion that the accused had not taken the money received by him into account of the Post Office and that he had avoided to make en¬tries in the relevant register. On the basis of his conclusion that the petitioner had dishonestly misappropriated the money and thereby committed the offence upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner passed by the trial Court under Section 409 I.P.C. 8. Before this Court the learned counsel for the petition¬er forcefully submitted that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence. According to him the conclu¬sions arrived at were based on surmises and conjunctures. It is further submitted that the Courts below have not properly appre¬ciated the evidence and the findings arrived at suffer from the vice of non-consideration of material evidence. 9. Mr. Padhi, learned counsel appearing for the Republic of India, at the other hand, strongly repudiated the submissions made before this Court. Strenuously referring to the evidence of P.W.9, he submitted that the said evidence coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.1,5 and 13 clearly established the prosecution case, and that the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence and the order of conviction and sentence is just, proper and in consonance with law. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials and evidence available. No doubt P.W.9 in his evidence has clearly substantiated the case of the prose¬cution. His evidence was not shaken in cross-examination. The evidence of P.W.9 is also corroborated to some extent by P.Ws.1,5 and 13. A cumulative reading of all the evidences shows that the prosecution has successfully established its case against the petitioner. But then, as would be evident from the facts and cir¬cumstances, the incident took place in the year 1991. More than 15 years have passed in the meanwhile. By efflux of time, the petitioner who was working as an Extra Departmental Post Master has not only lost his job but also has become old. That apart he had admitted most of the facts in the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He is a poor man. He could not afford to get any expert legal advice during trial. At one stage he was not even able to engage a counsel. That apart he had admitted most of the facts in the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He is a poor man. He could not afford to get any expert legal advice during trial. At one stage he was not even able to engage a counsel. Witnesses have not been properly cross-examined due to non-engagement of experienced Advocate. The allegations levelled mostly relate to accounting system main¬tained in the Post Office. Taking into consideration all these facts and the amounts alleged to have been misappropriated vis-a-vis the length of time the case has taken and the social stigma cast upon the petitioner as well as the mental agony through which he has passed all these 15 years, this Court while not interfering with the order of conviction feels that R.I. for seven days would be just, proper and equitable. Accordingly the sentences imposed by the Courts below is modified and reduced to seven days R.I. The petitioner is entitled to the set off in consonance with Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. With the aforesaid modification this Crl. Revision is dis¬posed of. Crl. Revision disposed of.