Judgment : The police laid a police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. as against the accused for the offences under Sections 408 and 477(a) L.P.C. (5 counts) for misappropriating a sum of Rs 4,890/- (in Crl. R.C. No: 192); Rs. 62,611.50 (in Crl. R.C. No: 193)) Rs. 9,179/- (in Crl. R.C. No: 194) and Rs. 4,716/- (in Crl. R.C. No: 195). Since the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was conducted. During the trial, P.Ws.1 to 33 were examined and Exhibits P-1 to P-86 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the accused. Ultimately, the trial Court recorded conviction as against the accused as under and imposed the following sentences: TABLE 2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeals in C.A. Nos. 44 to 47 of 2006 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court); Vellore, for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court confirming the recording of conviction as well as the sentence imposed. 3. Remonstrating and refuting the findings of both the Courts below, these revisions have been filed on various grounds the warp and woof of them would run thus: Both the Courts below failed to appreciate the factual circumstances properly. Without prejudice to the defence of the accused, the alleged misappropriated amounts were paid by the accused, but both the Courts below failed to take note of the said facts. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed and for acquitting the accused of all the charges. 4. However, at the time of making submissions in these revisions, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that he would restrict his prayer only to the extent of reducing the sentence imposed by the Courts below. 5. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The only mitigating circumstance which I could see is that the accused repaid the misappropriated amount. The core question arises as to whether on the ground alone the accused deserves to be released on probation of good conduct. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would cite the judgment of this Court Shanmugam and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2003), 3 MWN (Cr.) 133 represented by Inspection of Police, CCIW (CID), Trichy, an excerpt from it would run thus: “….On this I directed Mr. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would cite the judgment of this Court Shanmugam and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2003), 3 MWN (Cr.) 133 represented by Inspection of Police, CCIW (CID), Trichy, an excerpt from it would run thus: “….On this I directed Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate to verify whether such remittance is true or not. Accordingly, this case is listed before me today again only to decide on the question of sentence. Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned Government counsel, would produce a communication dated 8. 2000 sent by the Deputy registrar of the Co-operative Society, Pudukottai, who is the Investigating Officer in this case, which discloses that the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C. No: 935 of 1996 had remitted a sum of Rs. 48,700/-. Inasmuch as the sum stated to have been misappropriated had been reimbursed by the revision petitioner/accused, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be met by letting off the convicted revision petitioner under the Probation of Offenders Act instead of sending him to prison. There are precedents to this effect namely (1990) LW (Crl.) 172 and (1991) (1) LW. (Crl.) 355.” The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would oppose for releasing the accused on ‘probation of good conduct’. 6. At this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent of the decisions (i) Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Others AIR 2000 SC 1677 : (2000) MLJ (Crl) 697, an excerpt from it would run thus: “13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families. Criminal Courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A, IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the PO Act. While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent giving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of the vehicle in locomotion. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of the vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the Court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape from jail sentence. This is the role which the Courts can play, particularly at the level of trial Courts for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles. 14. Thus, bestowing our serious consideration on the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant we express our inability to learn to the benevolent provision to Section 4 of the PO Act, The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” (ii) State of Karnataka v. Sharanappa Bashagouda Aregoudar, AIR 2002 SC 1529 : (2002) 2 Supreme 500 : (2002) MLJ (Crl) 537: (2002) SCC (Cr) 704 an excerpt from it would run thus: “6. We are of the view that having regard to the serious nature of the accident, which resulted in the death of four persons, the learned single Judge should not have interfered with the sentence imposed by the Court below. It may create and set an unhealthy precedent and send wrong signals to the subordinate Courts which have to deal with several such accident cases. If the accused are found guilty of rash and negligent driving, Courts have to be on guard to ensure that they do not escape the dutches of law very lightly. The sentence imposed by the Courts should have deterrent effect on potential wrong-doers and it should commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. If the accused are found guilty of rash and negligent driving, Courts have to be on guard to ensure that they do not escape the dutches of law very lightly. The sentence imposed by the Courts should have deterrent effect on potential wrong-doers and it should commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. Of course, the Courts are given discretion in the matter of sentence, to take stock of the wide and varying range of facts that might be relevant for fixing the quantum of sentence, but the discretion shall be exercised with due regard to larger interest of the society and it is needless to add that passing of sentence on the offender is probably the most public face of the criminal justice system.” A bare perusal of these decisions would demonstrate that the Courts while imposing a sentence should not forget about the welfare of the society. The Court should not give a wrong signal that any one could commit any crime and by paying a petty fine, they can go freely. Here the accused was a responsible Secretary of the Co-operative Society, who was expected to maintain integrity and sincerity. Such Secretaries of the Cooperative societies have been entrusted with, enormous powers for ensuring the smooth running of the society. But, shockingly and surprisingly, the very responsible officer himself here swindled and misappropriated the amounts and in such a case simply because the accused had repaid the amounts, he cannot be let off on probation of good conduct. I hold that this case cannot be dealt with as per the decision of this Court in Shanmugam and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court which emerged after the decision of this Court. However, in view of the mitigating circumstances referred to supra, I am of the view that imposing two months simple imprisonment, instead of six months simple imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. The fine imposed is left in tact. The rest of the judgments of both the Courts below are confirmed. On receipt of a copy of this order, the Magistrate shall issue non bailable warrant and secure the presence of the convict to undergo the rest of the period of imprisonment, if not he had already undergone. The fine imposed is left in tact. The rest of the judgments of both the Courts below are confirmed. On receipt of a copy of this order, the Magistrate shall issue non bailable warrant and secure the presence of the convict to undergo the rest of the period of imprisonment, if not he had already undergone. I make it clear that the accused is entitled to the benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. to the extent possible. Accordingly, all these criminal revision cases are partly allowed. Revision partly allowed.