V.P. Tyagi, J.@mdashThis appeal of Chhoteylal has been admitted by this Court only on the question of the adequacy of sentence awarded to
him.
2. The appellant who was working as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent at the Post Office, Hindoli, was entrusted with money order No. 1552
of Rs. 13 70 to be delivered to one Ghasilal, but instead of delivering the amount of the money order to the addressee he forged the signatures of
Ghasilal as well as of one Dharamchand attesting witness and misappropriated the amount. He has been convicted by the learned trial Judge for
offences Under Sections 409 and 467 Indian Penal Code and awarded one years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- under the first
count & one year''s rigorous imprisonment & a fine of Rs. 500/- under the second count.
3. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argues that the sentence awarded to the appellant is excessive because the appellant is
hardly a boy of 22. As regards fine, it is contended that he is not in a position to pay the fine and, therefore, looking to his financial condition the
sentence of fine may be set aside.
4. I have gone through the judgment and I find that the appellant does not deserve any reduction of substantive sentence. Both the substantive
sentences are, however, ordered to run concurrently and that is sufficient relief that has already been given to him in the matter of substantive
sentence. However, I feel that the fine imposed by the trial court is excessive. The sentence of fine under both the counts is, therefore, reduced to
Rs. 50/- each; in default the appellant shall undergo fifteen days'' rigorous imprisonment for each default. The sentence awarded in case No. 15 of
1973 of which Appeal No. 16 of 1974 is pending shall run concurrently with the sentence passed in this appeal.
5. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed as observed above.
