Judgment :- The revision petitioner stands convicted by trial court in two cases for an offence under Section 408 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment sentence and imprisonment have to run concurrently. The said conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred these two criminal cases. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was a secretary of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Mampattu. During the relevant period, he has misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,04,303.91/- in one case and a sum of Rs.1,28,047/-in another case. Both the Trial and the Appellate Court have considered the evidence and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were totally two accused in the case. But the petitioner/second accused alone is convicted. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner was attending training programs between 33. 1997 to 14. 1997 and at that time the accounts were handed over to another person. 4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the accused has infact admitted his guilt before the enquiry officer and his statement is also marked as a document in the case. 5. This Court considered the submissions made by both parties and also perused the materials available on record. 6. The Trial Court after elaborately considering the evidence of the prosecution case convicted the accused. The Trial Court also observed that the accused after completion of his training joined duty and taken charge of the accounts. 7. This Court does not find any infirmity in the Judgment given by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. In the result, the conviction of the accused under section 408 IPC is confirmed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leniency in the sentence imposed on him and submits that the petitioner had already been in prison for 122 days. He further submits that the petitioner had already repaid a sum of Rs.47,000/-. 9. The offence committed by the petitioner relates to the period of 1997 and more than a decade had elapsed. The petitioner also reimbursed a part of the misappropriated amount. He further submits that the petitioner had already repaid a sum of Rs.47,000/-. 9. The offence committed by the petitioner relates to the period of 1997 and more than a decade had elapsed. The petitioner also reimbursed a part of the misappropriated amount. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner is modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone. Instead an additional fine of Rs.2000/- is imposed on the petitioner in each case and in default of payment, the petitioner has to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment in each case. 10. The petitioner is directed to pay the fine amount within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this Judgment copy. With the above modification, these criminal revision petitions are partly allowed.