ORDER : 1. The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 30th September, 2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2013 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed. 2. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 02.08.2013, convicted the petitioner along with co-accused-Janardhan Prasad Sinha for the offence under Section 409/120B, 406/120B, 420/120B 467/120B & 468/120B of the IPC and sentenced them for the aforesaid charges. The learned Appellate Court while sustaining the conviction and sentence under Section 409 and 120B IPC whereby the petitioner was directed to undergo RI for 4 years, acquitted the petitioner from the rest of the charges. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 29.08.2011, it was noticed that some temporary advances have been transferred in the name of Sri R.C. Pandit, Senior Technical/Optv., Staff No.233700, who is a non-executive working in the company. As per the company’s policy temporary advances is normally not given in case of non-executives. Further, it transpired that the following firms have the same address and Bank Account as that of Sri R.C. Pandit. Vendor Code Name of Firm/employee Address Bank details 1000029255 M/s Shiv Shashi Company Sector 3A, Qr. No.849, B.S.City 827003 A/C No.0127K920603050 Indusind Bank Ltd., Bokaro 1000029291 M/s Shiv Shashi Company Near Kai Press, Chas 827013 A/C No.89 Coop. Bank Ltd. Bokaro 9000000175 M/s Shiv Shashi Company Sector 3A, Qr. No.849, B.S.City 827003 A/C No.89 Coop. Bank Ltd. Bokaro 9000000190 M/s Shiv Shashi Company Sector 3A, Qr. No.849, B.S.City 827003 A/C No.89 Coop. Bank Ltd. Bokaro E233700 R.C.Pnadit Sector 3A, Type E Qr. No.849, B.S.City, 827003 A/C No.10225240727, SBI, Bokaro. It was also detected that many payments/transactions involving the above mentioned vendors had been done without any supporting proper papers in gross violation of financial discipline and such accounting adjustments were more evident from April 2010. Total payments made to all these vendors were approximately Rs.53 lakhs. These payment proposals were run by Sri J.P.Sinha, junior manager (F&A-OPAS) Staff No.460270 of the company, although from 14th May, 2011, the work allocation of the said Sri J.P.Sinha was changed and did not include such misc. payments. Thus, prima facie it was found that Sri. J.P.Sinha had made the aforesaid unauthorized payment and misappropriated company’s fund assets in connivance with others. 4. payments. Thus, prima facie it was found that Sri. J.P.Sinha had made the aforesaid unauthorized payment and misappropriated company’s fund assets in connivance with others. 4. On the basis of the written report, B.S. City P.S. Case No.326/2011 was registered under Section 406, 409, 420, 120B of the IPC on 01.09.2011 against Ram Charitar Pandit and Janardan Prasad Sinha. 5. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner along with co-accused and charges were framed against them. Both pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner holding that sum of Rs.64,31,000/- was embezzled by the petitioner along with co-accused through conspiracy. The learned court further held that the amount which was sent to different employees of BSL on false pretext by J.P.Sinha (co-accused) was returned to BSL by those employees and the informant has fully supported the prosecution’s version and all other prosecution witnesses have supported and corroborated the prosecution’s case. It has also been held by the learned trial court that the genesis of occurrence and also the manner and time of occurrence has been proved. 7. The learned Appellate Court after dealing with the evidences came to the conclusion that no offences is made out under Section 467, 468, 464 of the IPC, however, concurred with the finding given by the learned Trial Court so far as conviction under Section 409 and 120B of the IPC is concerned, however a separate sentence was imposed for Section 120B and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 8. Mr. Anil Kumar learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was senior technical/Optv. Staff and class III employee and was a non-executive in the company and as per the company taxation policy, temporary advances is not given in the case of non-executive. He further submits that the entrustment of the entire amount was lying with the co-convict (J.P.Sinha) who was the finance manager and it was only due to him and his act, money was transferred to different accounts. He further contended that since the basic ingredients for commission of offence under Section 409 of the IPC is entrustment which is admittedly lacking in the instant case as against the petitioner. He further contended that since the basic ingredients for commission of offence under Section 409 of the IPC is entrustment which is admittedly lacking in the instant case as against the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that it was the co-convict- J.P. Sinha who was entrusted with the money and without his signature and sanction, the money could not have been transferred to any other account as such, no case is made out under Section 409 of the IPC. He further contended that the petitioner is also convicted under Section 120B of the IPC only on the ground that the vigilance department of the company states that the petitioner has admitted that he used to keep 10% commission for him. The deposition of P.W.-1 in paragraph No.11 though transpires that petitioner has admitted in writing that he used to keep 10% commission out of the total amount, however the contents of the Exhibit (admission of the petitioner) has not been proved. He further contended that unless and until the contents of the document as a whole is proved, no useful purpose would be sufficed by merely proving the signature on the document. As per the Evidence Act, the contents of the document are required to be proved for admissibility of the same. Relying upon the aforesaid submissions he prayed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts even with respect to the offence under Section 120B of the IPC and as such, the instant application deserves to be allowed and the petitioner should be acquitted from the charges under Section 409 and 120B of the IPC. 9. Learned APP appearing for the State fully supports the impugned judgments and submits that huge amount has been embezzled by the petitioner in connivance with the co-convict-J.P.Sinha who was also convicted. The learned trial court has rightly convicted both the accused persons and there is no error, whatsoever, in the impugned judgments and the same should be sustained. 10. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. The main ground of defense is that the payment was made in his account by mistake and the same had already been returned by him. The petitioner was a class-III employee and it was on the instruction and sanction by J. P. Sinha, the amount was credited in the account of employee. The main ground of defense is that the payment was made in his account by mistake and the same had already been returned by him. The petitioner was a class-III employee and it was on the instruction and sanction by J. P. Sinha, the amount was credited in the account of employee. From the record, it also appears that Exhibit-1 is the statement of the petitioner given during enquiry in the vigilance department of the company in which he stated in writing that J. P. Sinha-co-convict since April, 2011 started transferring money in his account on the condition of retaining 10% of the said amount and returning 90% to him. The record further transpires that there were four firms having the same address and bank account of the petitioner, the details of which is mentioned in Para-2 herein above. It has been admitted by the petitioner that he was the resident of quarter No. 3 A/849 and M/s Shiv Shashi and company was owned by his son Abhay Kumar Pandit. Exhibit-1 clearly transpires that he admitted that the amount was received in his salary account and in the account of other two companies and the same was returned to J.P. Sinha. He used to return 90% amount to J.P.Sinha after retaining 10% for him. The contention of the learned senior counsel that since the contents of the document (Ext.-1) is required to be proved for admissibility and merely by proving the documents and the signature, the entire document in itself cannot be admissible, has no force. I am not in agreement with the aforesaid contention of the learned senior counsel for the reason that it has been proved by the prosecution with overwhelming evidences that there were four companies having same address and bank account of the petitioner as such merely on the ground that the contents of the document is required to be proved is of not much substance. There is categorical finding of the learned trial court that the informant has fully supported the prosecution version made out by him in his written report and other prosecution witnesses have supported and corroborated the prosecution case though they were cross-examined at length but nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The learned trial court has categorically held that the genesis of occurrence and the manner of occurrence has also been proved. 11. The learned trial court has categorically held that the genesis of occurrence and the manner of occurrence has also been proved. 11. In this view of the matter, I refrain myself from interfering with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court and the same is hereby sustained. 12. However, so far as his sentenced is concerned it is apparent from the record that the amount which has been credited, has been returned by the petitioner and also the fact that the mastermind was the co-accused – J.P. Sinha and the petitioner was only a class-III employee. Further, the incident is of the year 2011 and about 9 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 9 years and also remained in custody for 129 days. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any mental depravity. 13. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the accused person back to prison who, at present is aged about 67 years rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified for the period undergone. 14. Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone. 15. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, this revision application is disposed of. 16. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 17. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith. 18. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below. Application disposed of accordingly.