JUDGMENT :- These two Cri.Revn.Appln. can be disposed of by the present common judgment. Though two different Criminal Appeals were preferred before the lower appellate court bearing Cri.Appeal Nos. 31/1997 and 32/1997, since the appellant and the complainant were common and the offence was in respect of the transaction of the same Society about the misappropriation, the learned lower appellate court by its common judgment dated 9th June, 2000 was pleased to dismiss both the criminal Appeals, thereby, confirming the Judgments and Orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Raver, Dist. Jalgaon passed in Regular Criminal Case Nos. 132/1987 and 133/1987 convicting the applicant for the offence punishable U/Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In both the Regular Criminal Cases, the learned Magistrate by his separate Judgments dated 9th June, 2000 convicted the present applicant for the offence punishable U/Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and directed him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-[Rs. One Thousand only] and in default of payment of fine, directed him to suffer further simile imprisonment for six months. Needless to mention the learned Magistrate was pleased to direct that both the sentences awarded in these two different Criminal cases to run concurrently. 2. I have heard Mr. Ashwin V. Sakolkar, learned counsel for the applicant in both the Cri.Revn.Applns. and Mr. A.S. Shinde, learned A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra, in extenso. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients warranting conviction for the offence punishable U/Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the present applicant and hence, he submitted that, the applicant is entitled for acquittal by allowing the present Cri.Revn. Applications. 4. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below show that the prosecution was able to prove its case by adducing cogent and consistent evidence and in absence of any perversity, this court should be slow in interfering with such concurrent findings. 5. At the relevant time, the applicant was serving as Salesman in the Adiwasi Seva Sahakari Society, Lohare, Tal. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon from 31st December, 1985 to 28th June, 1986. 5. At the relevant time, the applicant was serving as Salesman in the Adiwasi Seva Sahakari Society, Lohare, Tal. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon from 31st December, 1985 to 28th June, 1986. According to the prosecution case, he was entrusted with the duty to bring the food grain from Supply Office, in order to sell the said food grain in the Fair Price Shop of the Society. Also he was duty bound to bring the kerosene and sell it to the customers. It was the duty of the applicant to deposit the amount of sale proceed either in the office of the Society or in the bank account of the Society. 6. PW No.6 Govind Puna Mahajan, Government Auditor audited the account of the Society. During his audit dated 28th June, 1986, it was found that the applicant has kept an amount of Rs.2077=20 ps. and Rs.1000/- in his hand without crediting it in the account of the Society or depositing it in the office of the Society. During the verification, no stock of kerosene was actually found with the Society and the applicant has defalcated an amount of Rs.450/-. 7. Two different Reg.Cri.Cases bearing Nos. 132/87 and 133/87 were launched against the present applicant. In each of the case, the prosecution agency has examined six witnesses. The learned trial court convicted the applicant in these two Criminal Cases, by delivering two separate Judgments, but on the same date ie 15th February, 1997 and in each case, convicted the applicant and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. 8. The learned 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalgaon vide his common Judgment dated 9th June, 2000 dismissed Cri. Appeal Nos. 31/97 and 32/97, preferred by the applicant. 9. The learned counsel for the applicant tried to substantiate his argument by submitting that the prosecution agency has failed to bring home the guilt of the applicant beyond reasonable doubt. He took me through the record of both the Criminal Cases. Through his brief argument, the learned counsel was unable to point out any perversity in the Judgments of any of the courts below. 10. Survey of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses clearly show that there was no error on the part of the courts below while holding the applicant guilty for the offence punishable U/Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 10. Survey of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses clearly show that there was no error on the part of the courts below while holding the applicant guilty for the offence punishable U/Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In fact, nothing could be brought on record to disbelieve the version of prosecution witnesses, in respect of document Exh.Nos. 21 and 22 showing that at the relevant date, an amount was in hand of the applicant, therefore, I see no reason to overturn the concurrent findings of facts, reached by the courts below, on proper appreciation of the evidence. 11. Now, as regards the question of sentence is concerned, according to me, considering the meager amount involved and looking to the fact that, after dismissal of Criminal Appeals, this court on 12th June, 2000 released the applicant on bail, according to me, after lapse of 14 years, directing the applicant to serve the remainder of jail sentence, would be harsh. Hence, I pass the following order :- ORDER (i) Cri.Revn.Appln.173/2000 and Cri.Revn.Appln.174/ 2000 are partly allowed. (ii) The Judgments and Orders dated 15th February, 1997 of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Raver, Dist. Jalgaon in Regular Criminal Case Nos. 132/1987 and 133/1987 holding the applicant guilty for the offence punishable U/Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is hereby confirmed. (iii) However, the common Judgment and Order dated 9th June, 2000 passed by the learned 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, dismissing Cri. Appeal Nos. 31/97 and 32/97 and confirming the sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate, are hereby set aside and instead, the jail sentence is modified to the extent, which the applicant has already undergone. (iv) The applicant shall pay additional fine of Rs.1000/- [Rs.One Thousand only] in both the cases within a period of four weeks from today in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Raver, Dist. Jalgaon; failing which, he shall be taken into custody for serving the remainder of his jail sentence. (v) With these modification, both the Cri.Revn.Appln. are partly allowed. (vi) Rule made absolute in above terms.