JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of the learned III-Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nalgonda, in Crl.A.No.123 of 2006, dated 07.12.2006, confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 409 of I.P.C. imposed against the revision petitioner/accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet, in C.C.No.30 of 2004 dated 15.06.2006. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the revision petitioner/accused was a sub-Post Master of Mathkur sub-Post Office for the period from 1988 to 19.04.2003. On 10.03.2003, the accused received an amount of Rs.10,000/- from P.W.4 for issuance of National Saving Certificate and accordingly he has issued the said certificate No.37EE 109027 in favour of P.W.4, but the accused has not credited the said amount to the Post Office Account. Subsequently, the application for purchase was registered on 12.04.2004 by correcting the registration number as 1029. Thereafter, on 04.04.2003, the accused has accepted a sum of Rs.10,000/-for purchase of Kisan Vikas Patras from P.W.5 through the agent (P.W.2) and issued receipt No. NND 351140 and 35141 for Rs.5,000/- each of the even date and also issued Kisan Vikas Patras bearing Nos.76BB 328175 and 328176 through the agent. The register Number was initially 1398, but actual register No. is 1397. In spite of receiving the said amount, the accused did not credit the same to the postal account, but utilized for his personal purpose. Subsequently, the accused has changed and manipulated the record of purchase as 16.04.2003 from 04.04.2003. Thereafter, the accused has accepted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the purchase of Kisan Vikas Patras from P.W.3 through P.W.2 and issued certificates vide Nos.76BB 328177 to 328196 of Rs.5,000/- each under register No.1398, however, he has not credited the said amount to the Post Office Account on that day. Thus, the accused has committed misappropriation of an amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. Basing on the complaint of P.W.1, the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.6) registered a case in Crime No.43 of 2003 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 468 of I.P.C. 3. The accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 468 of I.P.C. 4. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 to prove the guilt of the accused. The accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 468 of I.P.C. 4. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 to prove the guilt of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, while acquitting the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 468 of I.P.C., found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 409 of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner/accused preferred Crl.A.No.123 of 2006 and the learned III-Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, by judgment dated 07.12.2006, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/accused preferred this criminal revision. 5. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submits that the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and erroneously found the revision petitioner/accused guilty of the offence under Section 409 of I.P.C. even though there is absolutely no evidence as regards misappropriation of any amount by him. He further submits that no material is placed before the Court about the utilization of amounts by the revision petitioner personally out of the sale proceeds of the National Saving Certificates and, therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused are liable to be set aside. 6. Stoutly refuting the aforesaid submissions, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State contended that there is sufficient material to show that the revision petitioner/accused was responsible for the commission of offence and, therefore, the Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 409 of I.P.C. and the said findings recorded by both the Courts below do not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. I have perused the impugned judgments of the Courts below and also the evidence on record. 8. In this case, P.W.1, the then Sub Divisional Inspector, Nalgonda, who lodged Ex.P4-complaint before police, stated in his evidence that on the instructions of the Superintendent of Post Office, Nalgonda, he verified the applications and original saving certificates of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 and found that the month and date of issuance of the certificates were corrected and that the accused has misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- during his tenure. 9. P.W.2, postal agent, deposed in his evidence that P.W.5 gave him an amount of Rs.10,000/-for purchase of Kisan Vikas Patras and accordingly he issued a receipt to her and that he purchased Kisan Vikas Patras for the said amount in her name from the accused and handed over the said certificates to her and took back the receipt. He further stated that P.W.3 has also paid him Rs.1,00,000/-for purchase of Kisan Vikas Patras in her name and accordingly he purchased the certificates for the said amount from the accused and handed over to her. 10. P.W.3 in her evidence deposed that she does not know the accused, but she purchased Kisan Vikas Patras worth Rs.1,00,000/- from the sub post office, Mothkur through P.W.2. 11. P.W.4 stated in his evidence that he deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the post office at Mothkur and that the accused issued a receipt for the same in the form of National Saving Certificates. 12. P.W.5 in her evidence stated that she purchased Kisan Vikas Patras worth Rs.10,000/- through P.W.2. 13. There is no dispute that the accused worked as Sub Post Master of Sub Post Office, Mothkur during the relevant period. It is evident from the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 coupled with Ex.P3-application of P.W.3 that P.W.3 purchased Kissan Vikas Patras for a value of Rs.1,00,000/-through P.W.2. However, the evidence of P.W.1 that the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was not entered into the concerned account of Sub Post Office, Mothkur, by the accused remains unrebutted. P.W.1 further stated that he has also verified Ex.P2-application of P.W.5 for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patras for Rs.10,000/- and found that the date of issue has been corrected. P.W.2 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 that P.W.5 gave an amount of Rs.10,000/- to him for purchase of Kissan Vikas Patras and that he purchased the said Kissan Vikas Patras in favour of P.W.5 and handed over the same to P.W.5. However, as per the evidence of P.W.1, the said amount of Rs.10,000/- has also not accounted for by the accused. However, as per the evidence of P.W.1, the said amount of Rs.10,000/- has also not accounted for by the accused. P.W.1 has also verified Ex.P1-application of P.W.4 for purchase of National Savings Certificates and found that the date portion has been corrected and on verification of the original bond issued to him, he found that the date mentioned in the bond is not the same date mentioned in the application and that on verification of the Sub Office Daily Account also, the entry relating to the saving certificate issued to P.W.4 has not mentioned therein. 14. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the accused has received an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- from P.Ws.3 to 5 towards Kissan Vikas Patras as well as National Saving Certificates, but, he has not accounted the same to the account of Sub Post Office, Mothkur. The attested true copy of the Sub Office Account for the relevant period would disclose that there is no entry of the amounts received from P.Ws.3 to 5 for the purchase of National Saving Certificates and Kissan Vikas Patras. The revision petitioner/accused being a public servant, who was entrusted with the amounts deposited by the public, is bound to account for it. The failure on the part of the revision petitioner/accused to account for the said amount leads to an inference of dishonesty and thereby he misappropriated the amount. Thus, Courts below have given sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the revision petitioner. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the quantum of sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took place in the year 2003 and almost 19 years have passed and that it is stated that there is no previous criminal record against the revision petitioner. Considering the said circumstances, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioner/accused. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances and in the interest of justice, the sentence of simple imprisonment of two years imposed by the Courts below against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 409 of I.P.C. is reduced to Six months. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances and in the interest of justice, the sentence of simple imprisonment of two years imposed by the Courts below against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 409 of I.P.C. is reduced to Six months. Since the revision petitioner is on bail, his bail bond is hereby cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith for serving out the remaining period of sentence of imprisonment, otherwise the learned trial Judge shall take appropriate steps for securing his presence in order to serve out the remaining period of sentence of imprisonment. 16. With the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. 17. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.