JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.6.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge3, Nagpur, in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2003, confirming the judgment and order dated 1.3.003 passed by J.M.F.C. Saoner in Regular Criminal Case No. 80 of 1989 convicting the revision-applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 408 and 477-A of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- on each count, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment, the present revision was filed. 2. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the revision-applicant argued that the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in legal and correct manner and have wrongly convicted the applicant for the offences in question. According to him, the prosecution has failed to prove its case, that too beyond reasonable doubt in relation to the alleged misappropriation of total amount of Rs.14,040/- and Rs.1000/- by alleged falsification of accounts. The prosecution failed to prove the hand writing and signatures of the applicant on record in order that an inference regarding confiscation of amount could be drawn. In the alternative, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that at present the age of the applicant is about 62 years and he has been deprived of employment consequent to his conviction by the courts.. He then submitted that there is a finding recorded by the trial Court that the amount allegedly misappropriated by the applicant was recovered by the society from the applicant from his earned wages and before the commencement of the trial the entire amount stood paid to the society. According to him, these are the mitigating circumstances and looking to the age of the applicant this Court should reduce the sentence to the one already undergone by the applicant in view of the decisions of Supreme Court in (i) 2006 (5) SCC 381 State of H.P. v. Karanvir; (ii) AIR 1979 SC 1008 -Vasant Moghe v. State of Maharashtra; (iii) 2002 (9) SCC 352 (Bankupalli Channababu v. State by its Public Prosecutor, A.P.); and (iv) 1978 SC 1081 (Kassim Pillai Abdul v. The State of Kerala). He submits that the applicant has already undergone 15 days sentence. 3. Per contra, Mr. He submits that the applicant has already undergone 15 days sentence. 3. Per contra, Mr. Patel learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the revision application and argued that merely because the amount was recovered from the applicant, the offence of breach of trust cannot be diluted and the two courts below having concurrently held against the applicant, this Court should not interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below in its revisional jurisdiction. He also opposed the prayer for reduction of sentence. 4. I have gone through the judgments and orders made by the courts below. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant so also learned A.P.P., at the outset, I find that the finding regarding misappropriation of total 120 urea bags worth Rs.14,040/-as per the stock position of urea on 1.7.1986 with the society is based on documentary evidence that was produced and proved by the prosecution through P.W.3 Ramesh Bhute. In addition, there is entry of Rs.1,000/- which is shown to have been misappropriated by the applicant and that has also been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Instead of quoting the evidence, I prefer to quote extracted portion from para 7 of trial court's judgment, which reads thus "...From the scrutiny of the concerned stock register of urea, EX.14 and Ex.15 it clearly appears that the accused had not shown the stock of 107 bags of urea lying at Baddgaon centre on 29.6.86, on the next day of the stock position of urea i.e. on1.7.86. Similarly on 1.7.86 the disbursal of 13 bags of urea had been shown wrongly by the accused because there is no mention of liability to give 13 bags of urea on 28.6.86 as per Ex.14. Infact there is no mention of the date 28.6.86 at Ex.14, but it has been shown on 1.7.86 as per Ex.15 that on that day 13 bags of urea were disbursed as per the liability of 28.6.86. Thus from Ex.14 and Ex.16 there remains no doubt whatsoever that on 29.6.86 and on 1.7.86 cumulatively 120 bags of urea worth Rs.14040/- were not accounted...." 5. In my opinion, the above documentary evidence duly proved by the prosecution is enough to come to the conclusion that the applicant was rightly found guilty of the offence with which he was charged. I am therefore inclined to confirm the conviction recorded against the revision-applicant. 6. In my opinion, the above documentary evidence duly proved by the prosecution is enough to come to the conclusion that the applicant was rightly found guilty of the offence with which he was charged. I am therefore inclined to confirm the conviction recorded against the revision-applicant. 6. As regards the sentence, it is seen that the applicant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs.500/-on both the counts. The applicant has already undergone the sentence of 15 days. The incident is said to be of the year 1986-87. Conviction was recorded by the trial Court in the year 2003. The applicant by now is said to be of 62 years of age and was deprived of the employment due to his conviction. In view of the above mitigating circumstances and in view of the fact that the alleged misappropriated amount was recovered from his earned wages and in the light of the decisions of apex court, supra, the sentence awarded by the courts below deserves to be modified in the interest of justice. Hence, I make the following order. 7. Criminal Revision Application No.154 of 2007 is partly allowed. Conviction of the applicant under Sections 408 and 477A of Indian Penal Code is confirmed. The order of sentence made by the courts below is however modified and the applicant is sentenced to the one already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine is maintained.