JUDGMENT 1. - Present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. was instituted in the year 2001 to assail he judgment and decree dated 21st July, 2000 whereby Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kekri, Distt. Ajmer had held petitioner guilty of offence under Section 408 IPC and had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of two years and pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. The trial Court however, had acquitted the petitioner of the offence under Section 467 and 468 IPC. 2. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had preferred an appeal bearing No.7/2000. The appellate Court below vide judgment and decree dated 12th February, 2001 had upheld the conviction and sentence awarded upon the petitioner by the trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1981, petitioner was posted as a Manager of Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Karote. An inspection was carried by PW-1 Bhawani Singh on 28th September, 1984 and as per the report submitted by PW-1 Bhawani Singh, Inspector, petitioner by fabricating the record had committed misappropriation of Rs. 8,964/-. Trial Court after detailed judgment came to the conclusion that petitioner had neither fabricated nor forged any record and recorded acquittal of the petitioner for the offences under Section 467 and 468 IPC. However, trial Court came to the conclusion that petitioner had committed misappropriation Rs. 2,900/- and thus, committed offence under Section 408 IPC. 4. Shri Ali Mohd. Khan, counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, offence if any, pertain to the year 1981 and an inspection was carried in the year 1984. It is contended by Shri Ali Mohd. Khan that allegedly petitioner had misappropriated Rs. 2900/-. It is stated that said amount was deposited by the petitioner before registration of the case. 5. Shri Khan has further submitted that he is conscious that this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot re-evaluate and re-appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution and on facts cannot disturb the findings returned by two Courts below. Shri Khan has submitted that considering that petitioner is in the corridors of the Courts from last 30 years and has suffered agony and pain of protected trial, petitioner be not sent behind the bars. 6. I find merit in the contention advanced by counsel for the petitioner. Shri Khan has submitted that considering that petitioner is in the corridors of the Courts from last 30 years and has suffered agony and pain of protected trial, petitioner be not sent behind the bars. 6. I find merit in the contention advanced by counsel for the petitioner. Right of speedy trial vest in the accused. Period of 33 years is going to elapse from the alleged date of the offence. Petitioner for more than 3 decades has been in the corridors of the Court. Sword of domocles has been hanging on the head of the petitioner. Shri Khan has drawn my attention to Page 48 of the record to contend that on 27th October, 1999, petitioner had sought exemption of his personal appearance before the trial Court and as per the Medical Certificate on record, on 04th October, 1999, petitioner was aged 50 years. It is submitted that as on today, petitioner is more than 65 years of age. 7. Having heard Shri Khan and Shri NS Dhakad, the learned Public Prosecutor, considering the age of the petitioner and the fact that alleged offence was committed 33 years ago and the amount of misappropriation is Rs. 2900/-, this Court is of the view that sending the petitioner behind the bars at this stage, will serve no useful purpose. This Court is of the view that an opportunity can be provided to the petitioner to follow the path of rectitude and reform himself. 8. Consequently, petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for the period of one year. Petitioner shall furnish requisite personal bonds/surety bonds before the trial Court along with undertaking that for a period of one year, he shall be of good conduct and maintain peace. Petitioner is also saddled with cost of Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses. The cost shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of three months from the receipt of certified copy of the order. If petitioner fails to deposit the amount of the cost awarded, petitioner shall be called upon by the trial Court to serve the remaining sentence awarded by the trial Court. Furthermore, trial Court may also do so, in case of breach of bond/surety bonds/undertaking.Revision Partly Accepted. *******