Judgment Z.K. Saiyed, J.—The present appeal, filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10th August, 1993 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umreth, in Criminal Case No. 485 of 1991, whereby the learnfed Magistrate was pleased to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, and also imposed fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine; sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, original accused No. 1-present appellant is the Secretary of Limda Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli and the original accused No. 2 was the Chairman of the said Mandli. As per the case of the prosecution, between 01st January, 1990 and 30th June, 1990, both the accused with the help of each other, misappropriated an amount of Rs. 01,96,451/- permanently for their personal use. Therefore, a complaint to the said effect came to be filed against the accused persons on 09th January, 1991 in Umreth Police Station. 3. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer carried out investigation and recorded statements of witnesses. Thereafter, charge was framed at Exhibit 6 against the accused persons and read over to the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused persons, prosecution has examined in all six witnesses and also produced documentary evidence in support of its case. 5. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, in which accused persons denied the case of the prosecution. 6. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umreth by his judgment and order dated 10th August, 1993 held the present appellant–original accused No. 1 guilty to the charges levelled against him as mentioned aforesaid. 7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umreth, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 8. 7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umreth, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 8. Heard Mr. H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and Mr. V.M. Pancholi, leaned Counsel for the appellant. 9. Mr. H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has contended that the learned Judge has taken too lenient view while convicting the respondent-original accused No. 1. He has contended that the learned Magistrate has failed to impose proper sentence, which ultimately resulted into miscarriage of justice. The learned Magistrate has without appreciating the gravity of offence, taken lenient view and awarded lesser punishment. Mr. Jani has contended that the respondent-original accused No. 1 has permanently misappropriated huge amount of Rs. 1,96,451/- in 1990. He, therefore, contended that looking to the gravity of offence, the order passed by the learned Magistrate qua the sentence awarded to the respondent-original accused No. 1 is required to be enhanced. 10. As against this, Mr. Pancholi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that the learned Magistrate has passed the order in accordance with law. He has further contended that the respondent-original accused No. 1 is of 65 years of age. The respondent-original accused No. 1 has already repaid the amount in question. He has also contended that the respondent-original accused No. 1 is throughout on bail during the trial and during the hearing of the present appeal. Mr. Pancholi has also contended that looking to the age, repayment of amount in question and time gap, present appeal may be rejected. 11. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers produced before me. It is true that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent-original accused No. 1. It appears from the submission made by Mr. Pancholi that the respondent-original accused No. 1 has already repaid the amount in question and he was on bail throughout the trial as well as pending the present appeal. It also appears from the papers that offence was committed by the respondent-original accused No. 1 in the year 1990, present appeal was filed in the year 1993 and today, i.e. in the year 2011, present appeal is decided. Thus, after time gap of 20 years, today finally the present appeal is decided by this Court. It also appears from the papers that offence was committed by the respondent-original accused No. 1 in the year 1990, present appeal was filed in the year 1993 and today, i.e. in the year 2011, present appeal is decided. Thus, after time gap of 20 years, today finally the present appeal is decided by this Court. Even the respondent-original accused No. 1, who is present in the Court today, is of 65 years of age. Hence, looking to the age of the respondent-original accused No. 1, repayment of amount in question and time gap of 20 years, I am not in agreement with the submission of Mr.Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, to enhance the sentence awarded to the respondent-original accused No. 1. 12. Hence, in view of foregoing reasons, present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10th August, 1993 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umreth, in Criminal Case No. 485 of 1991, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.