Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. The appellant was triled by Special Judge CBI, Punjab Patiala for offences under Sections 120-B IPC read with Section 420 IPC and Section 471 IPC, besides Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Vide judgment and order dated 3.6.1994, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the said offence. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- under Section 471 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. All the sentences was ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the present appeal. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant was posted as a Manager of New Bank of India in its Sidhwan Dona Branch, District Kapurthala in the year, 1982. He entered into a criminal conspiracy with Ramesh Chander in order to cheat the bank. While abusing his official position as a public servant and in conspiracy with said Ramesh Chander, the appellant sanctioned and disbursed loans amounting to Rs. 5,000/- each in favour of a number of persons. While sanctioning the loans, the appellant relied upon forged and fictitious documents and in each of those cases, Ramesh Chander was shown to be a guarantor. However, as per the procedure for sanctioning the crop loan, the borrower had to approach the bank by furnishing a certificate from the Patwari regarding his land holdings, no dues/no objection certificate from the co- operative Society of his area and an advance copy of the invoice for the purchase of the fertilizer from the dealer. The loanee was also required to provide a sound guarantor. The loanee was also required to provide a sound guarantor. After the receipt of the said documents, the Bank Manager was required to prepare and complete the loan application form, D.P. Note, Credit/Debit voucher, letter of waiver, letter of guarantee and hypothecation of the crop. The signatures of the borrower and in case of illiterate persons, their thumb impressions were to be taken on the loan application form, on the letter of waiver, D.P. Note and hypothecation of crop by the Manager. The letter of guarantee was to be signed by the guarantor. After the completion of the said formalities, the loan was to be sanctioned and Branch Manager was required to issue a pay order in favour of the supplier firm from whom, the fertilizer was to be purchased. The bill issued by the dealer regarding the sale of the fertilizer was to be kept in the bank. The amount of the cash order was to be credited to the account of the firm. Cash payment was not to be made, whereas, the Cashier was to allow the credit to the supplier firm after authentication by the Bank Manager. 3. It was revealed during the investigation that a number of persons, who had applied for and sanctioned the loan, were non-existent, while, the remaining had neither applied for the loan nor received any benefit from the bank. Such persons, who were shown to have obtained the loan, denied that they ever purchased any fertilizer from M/s. Adi Trading Company. Thumb impressions of three such persons were taken which were found to be not tallying by the Forensic Science Laboratory with those appearing on the questioned documents. It was also found that the appellant did not obtain the Patwari certificate and No Objection Certificate as required by the Bank Rules. The amount of the pay orders, instead of being credited to the account of M/s. Adi Trading Company was found to have been paid in cash directly to Ramesh Chander, partner of the said firm. 4. It was also found that the appellant did not obtain the Patwari certificate and No Objection Certificate as required by the Bank Rules. The amount of the pay orders, instead of being credited to the account of M/s. Adi Trading Company was found to have been paid in cash directly to Ramesh Chander, partner of the said firm. 4. After the presentation of challan and framing of charges, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty, the persecution examined Manohar Lal Sharma PW- 1, Milkha Singh PW-2, J.K. Puri PW-3, N.K. Ghai, PW-4, Mangat Singh PW-5, Kundan Singh PW-6, Gulbadan Singh PW-7, Kehar Singh PW-8, Joginder Singh PW-9, Mohinder Singh PW-10, Faquir Singh PW-11, M.S. Saini PW-12, Ramesh Kumar Soni PW-13, Rajinder Shamsher Kohli PW-14, R.K. Jain PW-15, Gurbachan Lal PW-16, Subash Chander PW-17, Gurdial Singh PW-18, Ashwani Kumar PW-19, Nirmal Singh PW-20, Sohan Singh PW-21, Lashkar Singh PW-22, R.C. Sharma PW-23, Sarjan Singh PW-24, Kailash Chander PW-25 and P.S. Nayyar PW-26. 5. The case of the prosecution was then put to the appellant when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the correctness of the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. In his defence, the accused tendered into evidence, certified copies of the judgments Exhibits D-1 to D-32. 6. After perusing the evidence led by the prosecution and other documents brought on the record, the trial Court held that the prosecution was able to prove its case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. It convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 7. It have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence and the record. 8. Mangat Singh PW-5, who is Sarpanch of Village Talwandi Bharoo deposed that there were no persons by the names of Harwinder Singh son of Gurdial Singh, Balwinder Singh son of Ujjagar Singh, Manjit Singh son of Bir Singh, Dalip Singh son of Hazara Singh, Anup Singh son of Pal Singh, Mohinder Singh son of Pritam Singh, Shankar Singh son of Gurdial Singh, Satnam Singh son of Gulbadan Singh, Mohinder Singh son of Pritam Singh and Pritam Singh son of Harnam Singh in his village. To the same effect was the deposition of Kundan Singh PW-6 who is Lambardar of the same village. Gulbadan Singh PW-7 stated that he has no son by the name of Satnam Singh. To the same effect was the deposition of Kundan Singh PW-6 who is Lambardar of the same village. Gulbadan Singh PW-7 stated that he has no son by the name of Satnam Singh. Kehar Singh PW-8 who is resident of Village Fatehpur stated that there is no other person by the name of Joginder Singh son of Niranjan Singh in the village. All this shows that the aforementioned ten persons who were shown to be the ones in whose names, loans were sanctioned by the appellant, were non-existent. 9. The defence has tried to make capital out of various judgments passed by the Civil Court that as the recovery suits by the bank were decreed against the defendants in those suits, the question of non-existence of those defendants could not be believed. However, it may be seen that almost all those decrees were ex parte in nature. In some of the decrees, where, the defendant was shown to be the one, in whose favour, loans had been sanctioned, the actual decree is against the guarantor and not against the so-called loanee. In fact, the said stand of the loanee has been vindicated in those judgments and decrees as they were not shown to be one having applied for the loan. 10. The prosecution has been able to establish that the appellant was posted as a Manager at Sidhwan Dona Branch of the New Bank of India vide letter Exhibit PW-23/1, Charge Report Exhibit PW-23/2 and another letter Exhibit PW- 23/3 vide which, the appellant gave the information regarding his joining of duty at Sidhwan Dona Branch. 11. There was no necessity for obtaining sanction for prosecuting the appellant as before the launching of the prosecution, the appellant had been compulsorily retired. 12. In view of the above, no fault can be found with the conviction of the appellant for various offences. 13. Coming to the question of sentence, it may be seen that the incident relates to the year 1982. When the FIR was registered, the appellant was granted the concession of bail. After his conviction and sentence by the trial Court, he was granted interim bail upto 18.7.1994. However, while admitting the appeal on 13.7.1994, this Court did not find any case for the grant of bail and, accordingly, the same was declined. When the FIR was registered, the appellant was granted the concession of bail. After his conviction and sentence by the trial Court, he was granted interim bail upto 18.7.1994. However, while admitting the appeal on 13.7.1994, this Court did not find any case for the grant of bail and, accordingly, the same was declined. The appellant was, thereafter, taken into custody on 19.7.1994 and, then granted the concession of bail vide order dated 23.9.1994. It is, thus, clear that the appellant served a period of two months and four days in jail after the prayer made on his behalf was initially declined by this Court. 14. The appellant was described to be 65 years of age as on 3.9.1992 when he was charged for the various offences. A period of about 15 years has elapsed since then. It is also clear from the records that the appellant was compulsorily retired from service before launching of the criminal proceedings. 15. In Ramesh Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., 1996(1) RCR(Crl.) 94 (SC) : AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2121 where a police Inspector was alleged to have accepted bribe, the Honble Supreme Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment of one year RI to that already undergone by him on the ground that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1979 and all those years, the accused had been undergoing the agony of criminal proceedings. Moreover, he had lost his job and had a large family to support. The relevant observation is as follows :- "Now coming to the question of sentence, it is a very old case and the occurrence itself is said to have taken place in the year 1979. All these years the accused has undergone the agony of criminal proceedings. He has lost his job and we are told that he has a large family to support. In similar circumstances, in B.C. Goswami v. Delhi Administration, 1974(3) SCC 85 : AIR 1973 SC 1457, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone. From the records, it appears that the appellant was in jail for some time. Accordingly, while conforming the conviction we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine with default clause is however, maintained. Subject to the above modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed." 16. From the records, it appears that the appellant was in jail for some time. Accordingly, while conforming the conviction we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine with default clause is however, maintained. Subject to the above modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed." 16. In B.C. Goswami v. Delhi Administration, 1974(3) SCC 85 : AIR 1973 SC 1457, Honble Supreme Court held that both too lenient and too harsh sentences lose their efficaciousness. While one did not deter, the other might frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. After upholding the conviction of the accused under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and noticing that though the said offence prescribed minimum sentence of RI for one year besides the fine, the sentence of imprisonment could be for a lesser period but in that event the Court had to assign special reasons, which must be recorded in writing. Finally, after observing that sending the accused back to jail after seven years of the agony and harassment of the proceedings when he was also going to lose his job and had to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone, but increased the sentence of fine. The said conclusion is as follows :- "As already observed, the appellants conviction under Section 161, IPC, was rightly upheld by the High Court and there is no cogent ground made out for our interference with that conviction. The sentence of imprisonment imposed by the High Court for both these offences is one year and this sentence is to run concurrently. The only question which arises is that under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act the minimum sentence prescribed is rigorous imprisonment for one year and there must also be imposition of fine. The sentence of imprisonment can be for a lesser period but in that event the Court has to assign special reasons which must be recorded in writing. In considering the special reasons the judicial discretion of the Court is as wide as the demand of the cause of substantial justice. The sentence of imprisonment can be for a lesser period but in that event the Court has to assign special reasons which must be recorded in writing. In considering the special reasons the judicial discretion of the Court is as wide as the demand of the cause of substantial justice. Now the question of sentence is always a difficult question, requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various considerations which weigh with a judicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum in a given case. The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realise that he has committed an act which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also be preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence. It is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law abiding citizen for the period of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining the question. In modern civilized societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentences both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. In the present case, after weighing the considerations already noticed by us and the fact that to send the appellant back to Jail now after 7 years of the agony and harassment of these proceedings when he is also going to lose his job and has to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but increase the sentence of fine from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 400/-. Period of imprisonment in case of default will remain the same." 17. 200/- to Rs. 400/-. Period of imprisonment in case of default will remain the same." 17. In view of the above, this Court finds that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant behind the bars at this stage and ends of justice would be amply met by reducing his sentences for the various offences to the one already undergone by him. 18. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for the various offences is upheld. However, the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant for all the offences are reduced to that already undergone by him. The sentences of fine along with their default clause, are maintained. Except for the above modification in the quantum of sentence, the present appeal is dismissed.