M. B. Sharma, J.
1. Both the above numbered revision petitions arise out of the same judgment dated 7-3-1986 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dausa Camp, Jaipur. The said judgment was delivered in two criminal appeals Nos. 117/1979 and criminal appeal No. 89/1976. The said two appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 8-4-1976 of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, District Jaipur convicting each of the accused petitioner Mussadi Lal and Jamna Lal Under Section 420 I.P.C. and sentencing the accused petitioner Mussadi Lal to undergo six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs, 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 2 months R.I. and sentencing Jamna Lal to undergo 4 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one months R.I. The accused petitioner Mussadi Lal was also convicted Under Section 120B, I.P.C. and Under Section 109/420, I.P.C. and on former count he was sentenced to undergo one months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- or indefault of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days R.I. Under the latter count 4 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one months' R.I. The accused petitioner Jamna Lal was also convicted Under Section 120B and was sentenced to undergo one months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days R.I.
2. The substantive sentences under both the counts were ordered to run concurrently. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge under the impugned judgments dismissed the appeals both in respect of conviction as well as sentence.
3. The facts of the case are contained in the judgment of two courts below and more so in the judgment of the trial court in detail but the only prayer which has been made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the case is of the year 1971 and the accused petitioners have already undergone some sentences. Not only this the entire dues of the bank have been paid and, therefore, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act may be extended to the accused petitioners. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of State v. Ramadas Naidu and Ors. 1977 Or. L.J. 2048 of Madras High Court and to the case of Abdul Hamid v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1981 (Supp) S.C.C 82. In the earlier case the court has extended the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act Under Sections, 415 and 420, I.P.C.
4. There can be no dispute that the incident relates to the year 1971. This court in criminal appeal No. 426/1979, while upholding the conviction of the accused-petitioner Mussadi Lal has ordered that he be released on the sentence already undergone and the fine was increased. There can be no dispute that so far as Mussadi Lal is concerned, the consideration which prevails with court in the aforesaid appeal were more than one. It that time the accused Mussadi Lal was aged about 62 years and was suffering from heart ailment. That apart the entire dues of the bank have already been paid. I am therefore, of the opinion and taking into consideration that the case relates to the year 1971 and the entire dues of the bank have already been paid, no purpose would be served if the accused petitioner is sent to jail and the sentence already undergone shall meet the ends of justice.
5. Consequently, I partly allow both these revision petitions. While maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner as awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court and it is directed that the accused petitioner Mussadi Lal is sentenced to serve sentence already undergone Under Sections 109, 420 and 120B IPC and 420 IPC. Under Section 420 IPC he will pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days R.I. Under Section 120B he shall pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days R.I. and Under Section 109 I.P.C. he shall further pay a fine of Rs. 400/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days S.I.
6. The accused petitioner Jamna Lal in addition to sentence already undergone shall pay a fine of Rs. 500/-Under Sections 120B and 420 I.P.C. and Rs. 500/- Under Section 120B of I.P.C. and Rs. 500/- Under Section 420 I.P.C In case of each default, he shall further suffer 15 days S.I. Both the accused petitioners should deposit the fine with the trial court within two months failing which trial court shall take steps to get the accused petitioners apprehended to undergo the sentence in lieu of payment of fine.