Judgment This revision petition is filed against the judgment rendered by the learned Additional District Cum Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore, in C.A.No.80 of 2008, dated 24.10.2008 by confirming the judgment rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Vellore in C.C.No.56/2007 dated 28.03.2008 by convicting the revision petitioner for the offence under section 408 read with 35, 477A, read with 35, and sentencing him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for each offence to run concurrently and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for each offence in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner is only the Secretary of the Co-operative society. The complaint was that the gunny bags which was collected from the various ration shops was only entrusted with A2 who has filed Crl.R.C.No.71 of 2009 and there is no direct evidence linking the Secretary regarding the entrustment. He would further contend that the Courts below have not taken into consideration that the entrustment has not been made to the revision petitioner and convicted and sentenced him. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further plead that if at all the Court comes to the same conclusion, some leniency in punishment may be shown as he is the sole bread winner of the family, has already lost his job and he is aged 52 years. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would contend that it is the job of the Secretary to maintain the entire records as well as the stocks. He is the sole custodian of the entire co-operative society, stocks as well as the records. Therefore, he cannot plead that entrustment is not made on him. There is no need or necessity to entrust the goods to the Secretary. It is overall job of the Secretary to look into the records and check whether the goods available are as per the records. He would further plead even according to the revision petitioner, the goods are entrusted to the A2 who is the concerned clerk who is directly under the supervision of the Secretary/ revision petitioner. Therefore, the question of direct entrustment to the Secretary does not arise and the courts below have rightly held him responsible. 5. He would further plead even according to the revision petitioner, the goods are entrusted to the A2 who is the concerned clerk who is directly under the supervision of the Secretary/ revision petitioner. Therefore, the question of direct entrustment to the Secretary does not arise and the courts below have rightly held him responsible. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would further contend that, the actual mis-appropriation done by the revision petitioner alone is Rs.3,50,911.70 and the overall loss including all the others is upto Rs.12 Lakhs. Therefore, the plea of the revision petitioner may not be considered and would contend that the order of the courts below is fair, reasonable and correct and prayed for the dismissal of the revision petition. 6. Heard both sides. By consent of both the parties, the revision itself is taken up for final disposal. 7. The only point which is raised by the revision petitioner is that the complaint itself is the entrustment of the gunny bags recovered from the various ration shops and that gunny bags have not been entrusted to the revision petitioner and it is only entrusted to A2, the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.71 of 2009. Therefore, when there is no direct entrustment, he could not be held liable and hence, the punishment granted is legally not sustainable. 8. When we analyse the entire evidence, as well as the judgment, one thing is clear, i.e., the revision petitioner is the Secretary of the co-operative society. The Secretary is the custodian of all the documents as well as the stock. He is incharge for the day to day affairs of the society. He is the overall controller of the society. A2 is the direct superintendent of A1 the revision petitioner. The entrustment of goods has been accepted and the entrustment of goods has been given to the concerned person, namely, A2. Therefore, the revision petitioner who is the Secretary cannot now claim before this Court that there is no evidence of entrustment. 9. In fact, in his capacity as Secretary, he is bound to verify the records, the stocks as well as the receipt of the materials. Therefore, the revision petitioner who is the Secretary cannot now claim before this Court that there is no evidence of entrustment. 9. In fact, in his capacity as Secretary, he is bound to verify the records, the stocks as well as the receipt of the materials. Infact as per the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), loss to the society is more than Rs.8 Lakhs and the involvement of the petitioner alone is Rs.3,50,911.70 and A2 alone is Rs.1,56,164.85 and therefore, the present argument that there is no entrustment could not be accepted. Even otherwise, wherein, the question of direct entrustment will arise, the lower court as well as the first Appellate Court has categorically considered Ex.A.12, Ex.A.13. Ex.A.14 to Ex.A16 which are the relevant ledgers and Day-books which have clearly established that the revision petitioner has not only mis-appropriated, but has manipulated the books and certain amounts and they have not been brought into the books at all. 10. Further, if we consider the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.12 and the documents produced, namely, Ex.P1 to Ex.P.20, the petitioner and the other accused have taken into confidence by themselves that they have not even brought to the books regarding the rice bags, sugar bags and also the collections made. Infact, on the particular date on 31.03.2002 when the stock has been verified, it was found out that the empty gunny bags were not available and hence, the revision petitioner has mis-appropriated to the tune of Rs.3,50,911.70 and it was not explained by the revision petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the courts below. 11. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner once again pleaded for leniency in punishment taking into consideration that the revision petitioner has already lost the job, he is the sole bread winner of the family and is 52 years old repenting for his offence. 12. 11. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner once again pleaded for leniency in punishment taking into consideration that the revision petitioner has already lost the job, he is the sole bread winner of the family and is 52 years old repenting for his offence. 12. Hence, taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the request of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the punishment of one year rigorous imprisonment for each offence to run concurrently for the offence under sections 408 read with 35 and 477A, read with 35 of I.P.C., is reduced to the punishment of four months rigorous imprisonment for each offence to run concurrently, for the offence under sections 408 read with 35 and 477A read with 35 of I.P.C. Except this reduction in sentence, the order in other aspects stands confirmed. 13. In the result, the revision is partly allowed confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence imposed as follows: the punishment of one year rigorous imprisonment for each offence to run concurrently for the offence under sections 408 read with 35 and 477A read with 35 of I.P.C., is reduced to the punishment of four months rigorous imprisonment for each offence to run concurrently, for the offence under sections 408 read with 35 and 477A read with 35 of I.P.C. and the fine amount of Rs.500/-for each offence in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment is confirmed. The period of sentence already undergone by the revision petitioner is ordered to be given set off under Section 428 (c) of Cr.P.C. 14. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Vellore is directed to issue necessary warrant for the completion of the balance sentence.