S.S. Byas, J.@mdashThe State has come-up in appeal for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused-respondent Ravindra Nath.
2. Accused was convicted under Sections 409, 468 and 471 IPC and was sentenced to ten days'' simple imprisonment on each count with the fine of Rs. 50/- on the first and the fine of Rs. 25/- on the second and third counts.
3. It was argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the sentence awarded to the accused is grossly inadequate. It was on, the other hand, contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner that the total amount involved was only Rs. 83.26p. which was deposited by the accused. It was further submitted that the offence was committed long back in October 1973 and judgment was rendered by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate in March, 1977. The appeal is being heard and disposed of in 1987. It was argued that looking to this long lapse often years in between the conviction and disposal of the appeal, it would not be proper to enhance the sentence. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration.
4. The amount involved is only Rs. 83.26p. which has been deposited by the accused. He was sentended to ten days'' simple imprisonment. Looking to the amount involved, the sentence awarded does not appear to be inadequate. Moreover, looking to the long lapse of ten years in between the conviction and the disposal of the appeal we don''t think it proper to enhance the sentence. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
