JUDGMENT : M. G. GIRATKAR, J. 1. Heard Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant (hereinafter referred as "accused") and Shri V.P. Gangane, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State. 2. Shri Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that now the accused is aged about 80 years and no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him in jail. The accused has already paid fine amount before the trial Court and he is ready and willing to pay additional Rs. 50,000/- towards fine amount for all the offences registered against him. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the accused has pointed out the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dayanand Ramkrishna Shet .v. State of Karnataka reported in, (2014) 14 SCC 26 and Ved Prakash Handooja .v. Delhi Administration reported in, (1974) 4 SCC 596 . Shri Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for the accused has fairly submitted that there are concurrent findings of the learned Courts below. Therefore, he has made submission on the point of leniency only. 3. Shri Gangane, learned APP for the respondent/State has strongly objected the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the accused and submitted that the accused has misappropriated government money of Rs. 23,495.10 by fabricating the documents and, therefore, he is rightly convicted and he should undergo the sentence as directed by the trial Court. 4. Shri Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for the accused has pointed out para 19 of the judgment of Sessions Court in Appeal No. 12 of 2014. From the observations in para 19, it appears that the accused had shown one document which shows that he had deposited Rs. 14,741.45 and could not deposit Rs. 8,753.65. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant has misappropriated the amount of Rs. 23,495.10. 5. The evidence on record shows that the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry and during the enquiry, he has found misappropriation of the amount by the accused. The Enquiry Officer himself lodged report. He was examined before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Material allegations are proved by PW-1 (Narayan Bodkhe) corroborated by the other evidence. Therefore, learned CJM has rightly convicted the accused. The first appellate Court, after evaluating the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal. 6. The Enquiry Officer himself lodged report. He was examined before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Material allegations are proved by PW-1 (Narayan Bodkhe) corroborated by the other evidence. Therefore, learned CJM has rightly convicted the accused. The first appellate Court, after evaluating the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal. 6. As per the submission of learned Counsel for the accused, the accused has undergone jail sentence for about 90 days. He has already paid fine amount before the trial Court. He is aged about 80 years. Learned Counsel has submitted that in addition to the fine amount deposited by him, he would deposit Rs. 50,000/- towards fine amount for all the offences registered against him. 7. Punishment provided for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code is, "... or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." Punishment provided for the offence punishable under Section 465 is, "... with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." Punishment provided for the offence punishable under Section 468 is, "... with imprisonment of either description a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." Punishment provided for the offence punishable under Section 477(A) is, "... with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both." 8. The accused has already undergone jail sentence for the period of 90 days. He has already paid fine amount. Now, he is aged about 80 years. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dayanand Ramkrishna Shet .v. State of Karnataka (cited supra) has held as under :- "On facts, accused Manager and Assistant Manager in Cooperative Society empowered to sanction loans, misappropriated amount by forging documents and falsifying accounts. High Court sentenced them to undergo 1 yr's SI and fine of Rs. 10,000, in default simple imprisonment for three months for offence under S. 467 r/w S. 34 IPC and further 1 yr's SI and fine of Rs. 10,000, in default three months' simple imprisonment under S. 409 r/w S. 34 IPC concurrently. As per common interim order dt. 2-1-2013 of Supreme Court appellants had already deposited entire sum of Rs. 2,88,000 each being sum embezzled and also a fine, totalling Rs. 10,000, in default three months' simple imprisonment under S. 409 r/w S. 34 IPC concurrently. As per common interim order dt. 2-1-2013 of Supreme Court appellants had already deposited entire sum of Rs. 2,88,000 each being sum embezzled and also a fine, totalling Rs. 76,000 and appellants now aged 64 and 52 yrs respectively and not keeping good health. Held, sentences reduced to period already undergone." 9. Looking to the age of the accused and the period undergone in jail, in the interest of justice, following order is passed. Revision is partly allowed. The conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 465, 468, 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. However, sentence is modified to the extent that the accused is convicted for the period already undergone in jail. The accused has already paid fine amount before the trial Court. He is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) more towards fine amount. Accused is directed to pay the fine amount before the trial within a period of one month from today. If he fails to pay the said amount within a period of one month from today, then he shall undergo the jail sentence as directed by the Courts below. Revision stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.