Jharkhand High Court
Bhagwan Prasad Baranwal Son Of Late ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party on 5 February, 2021
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1057 of 2014
1. Bhagwan Prasad Baranwal son of Late Sarju Modi
2. Arbind Baranwal son of Late Sarju Modi
3. Gopal Baranwal @ Gopal Modi son of Late Sarju Modi
4. Muni Devi @ Shanti Devi W/o Hari Narayan Baranwal
... ... Petitioners
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate
For Opp. Party-State : Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P.
---
Through Video Conferencing
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on17.10.2020 Pronounced on 05.02.2021
1. Heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Suraj Verma, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.
3. The learned trial court vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 31.01.2001passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar in G.R. No. 470 of 1983 / T.R. No. 01/2001 (arising out of Jasidih P.S. Case No. 80/1983 dated 01.07.1983) had convicted the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and the Petitioner No.4 under Sections 465, 468 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
4. The learned trial court had sentenced the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 months each under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code; 02 years and 2 to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional Rigorous Imprisonment for one month each, 06 months each under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court had sentenced the Petitioner No.4 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 months under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 02 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional Rigorous Imprisonment for one month, 01 year under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code, 02 years under Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. All the sentences of the petitioners were directed to run concurrently.
5. The petitioners had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 16/2001 against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence in which the learned appellate court vide Judgment dated 24.07.2014 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar acquitted the Petitioner No.4 from the charges under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and upheld her conviction for the offences under Sections 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and she was ordered to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act after furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety for a period of one year and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period for the offences under Sections 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned appellate court upheld the conviction of the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3, but considering their age and the long period in contesting the case, reduced their sentence under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code to 01 year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month each and maintained their 3 sentences under Sections 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and dismissed the appeal with modification.
6. The petitioners have preferred the present criminal revision petition against the Judgment dated 24.07.2014 passed by the learned appellate court in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2001 as well as the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 31.01.2001passed by the learned trial court in G.R. No. 470 of 1983 / T.R. No. 01/2001. Arguments on behalf of the petitioners
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted as under:-
a. No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution and the most important witness namely, Shanti Devi @ Shakuntala Devi W/o Hari Narayan Modi, who was aggrieved by the act of the petitioners, as well as the Investigating Officer of the case have not been examined which caused serious prejudice to the petitioners. He further submitted that non-examination of the aforesaid material witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case.
b. The learned trial court failed to appreciate that the basic ingredient of Section 109 of IPC has not been proved. The prosecution has failed to prove conspiracy, instigation and participation of the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 in the said crime. Merely being present at the scene of crime is not attributable to intent.
c. For proving the guilt of the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 under Section 109, the prosecution ought to have proved whether the petitioner no. 1 to 3 are abettor as defined under Section 108 of the IPC. Applying this ingredient in the present case, it is clear that petitioners were neither impersonating Shanti Devi, nor they were the 4 manufacturer of the document, nor the documents were submitted before the registry to cause any injury to the informant. The maker of the sale deed was P.W. No.-3 and he instigated Munni Devi to sign as Shanti Devi. However, P.W.-3 is not an accused for the reason best known to the prosecution.
d. The prosecution has failed to prove in evidence that the petitioners coerced or were in criminal conspiracy with Munni Devi (Petitioner No. 4) that enabled Munni Devi to sell away the property belonging to Shanti Devi. The other co-accused are merely beneficiary of the misdeed. In absence of any commission of crime, the prosecution cannot hold the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 liable for the offence being committed by Munni Devi.
e. The case of the prosecution under Section 109 of IPC was not discussed properly by the appellate court, still the appeal of the petitioner no. 1 to 3 was dismissed by the learned appellate court. Although the learned trial court found prima facie case under Section 109 IPC, the learned appellate court found no facts and circumstances leading to commission of any transaction under Section 109 of the IPC.
f. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the basic ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 465 and 468 of the IPC have not been provided by the prosecution and accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners call for interference in revisional jurisdiction of this court to secure the ends of justice.
g. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank -vs- Satyam Fibres reported in (1996) 5 SCC 550 and submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations of fraud and forgery against the 5 petitioners by leading direct evidence or from the inference drawn from the proved facts. He also relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Ibrahim and Ors. -vs- State of Bihar reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 and submitted that there is no execution of any false document by the Petitioner Nos.
1, 2 and 3 in terms of Section 464 of the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore, conviction of the petitioners under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code is unsustainable and is fit to be set aside. h. The learned counsel also relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Sheila Sebastian -vs- R. Jawaharaj & Ors. (2018) 7 SCC 581 and submitted that if the person on whom the allegation of manufacturing of the false document is not proved, then in that situation, the prosecution cannot prove the case against the accused.
i. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that both the learned courts below have failed to consider the aforesaid aspects of the case and therefore, the impugned judgments are perverse and are fit to be set- aside and the petitioners are fit to be acquitted from the charges giving benefit of doubt.
j. On the point of sentences of the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, considering the facts that the case is related to the year 1983 and the petitioners have faced the rigors of the criminal litigation for a long period and they have no criminal antecedents, a lenient view may be taken and their sentences may be modified to some extent. It is submitted that the present age of the 6 Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is about 66, 62 and 58 years respectively.
Arguments on behalf of Opposite Party-State
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that on 04.01.1983, abetted by the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Munni Devi (Petitioner No.4) impersonated herself as Shanti Devi and executed the sale deed of Rs. 4,000/- in favour of the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 with respect to half share in the property bearing Sale Deed No. 249 dated 17.07.1948 and the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were very much aware that Munni Devi was not Shanti Devi. He further submitted that prosecution witnesses have fully established the allegations against the petitioners and therefore, non-examination of the Investigation Officer does not affect the prosecution case in any away and is not fatal to the prosecution case and in this respect, he relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Behari Prasad -vs- State of Bihar reported in (1996) 2 SCC 317.
9. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned judgments do not suffer from any illegality or perversity and there is no scope of re-appreciation of evidence in revisional jurisdiction and therefore, the present criminal revision petition is fit to be dismissed.
Findings of this Court
10. This Court finds that the prosecution case is based on a Complaint presented on 27.06.1983 by the Informant namely, Hari Singh before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar which was sent under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the Officer-in-charge, Jasidih P.S. to institute a case and to investigate and accordingly, the case was registered as Jasidih P.S. Case No. 80/1983 dated 01.07.1983. It was alleged in the Complaint that the property involved in this case was 7 recorded exclusively in the name of Ishwari Kumari who sold it to Brahma Devi W/o Sarju Modi and Shanti Devi W/o Hari Narain Modi for a lawful consideration of Rs. 6000/- only by registered deed of sale dated 17.07.1948 and they came in joint possession of the same and subsequently partitioned it amongst themselves. It was also stated that Shanti Devi had no knowledge about the execution of the aforesaid Sale Deed dated 04.01.1983 executed by the Petitioner No. 4 in favour of the Petitioner Nos 1 to 3 and she sold half share in the land and house which was purchased by her for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/- by registered Sale Deed dated 12.02.1983 to the informant and his mother Smt. Tej Kaur and after the execution of the aforesaid sale deed, the Informant and his mother came in the possession of the land and the premises purchased by them. It was further stated that the Informant and his mother also applied for mutation of their names on 23.02.1983 in the office of Circle Officer, Deoghar and the Informant was surprised and shocked to know that the petitioner no 1 to 3 had applied for mutation on the basis of the Sale deed dated 04.01.1983 executed by Munni Devi ( petitioner no 4 ) after using the Xerox copy of original Sale Deed dated 04.01.1983 and after perusal of the said document, it was revealed that the signatory of the sale deed had started putting her signature as Munni Devi and after writing the letter "Mu" in hindi , the Petitioner No.4, Munni Devi became conscious and thereafter, she signed as Shanti Devi. The Informant claimed that the Munni Devi (petitioner no. 4) has dishonestly and fraudulently executed the Sale Deed dated 04.01.1983 being abetted and instigated by the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sarju Modi with an intention of causing it to be believed that the said document has been signed by Shanti Devi W/o Hari Narayan Modi knowing full well that she was doing so without any authority.
811. From perusal of the records of this case, it is apparent that the present case arises out of a complaint being PCR Case No.226 of 1983. The complainant was Hari Singh and altogether there were 6 accused persons. Accused No.1 was Munni Devi, who is the daughter of Sarju Modi, Accused No.2 was Sarju Modi and Accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 (i.e. Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3) are the sons of Sarju Modi. Accused No.3 was Shankar Rawani. Said Iswari Kumari sold the property to Brahma Devi wife of Sarju Modi and Shanti Devi wife of Hari Narayan Modi by registered deed of sale dated 17.07.1948 who partitioned the same amongst themselves. Sarju Modi and Hari Narayan Modi had common ancestor namely, Govind Modi. The allegation against the accused was that Sarju Modi along with accused nos. 4, 5 and 6 i.e., Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 fraudulently set up Munni Devi to impersonate herself as Shanti Devi and they got a deed of sale executed by her on 04.01.1983 in favour of accused nos.4 to 6. Said Munni Devi was abated by the other accused persons to commit the alleged offence and was identified by accused no.2- Sarju Modi, who had also signed as a witness to the deed. Accused No.3, Shankar Rawani had also signed as witness. It was further case of the complainant that Munni Devi was born on 02.07.1949 and accordingly, the sale deed could not have been executed in her favour on 17.07.1948. Munni Devi was married to Hari Narayan Barnwal who was never known as Hari Narayan Modi. Said Munni Devi was also a student of Kamla Kanya Pathshala, Jasidih where she was described as daughter of Sarju Modi and her date of birth has been mentioned as 02.07.1949.
12. On the basis of aforesaid, it was alleged that the accused persons have committed offence under Sections 465, 468, 471, 419 and 109 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 82 of Indian Registration Act. This Court finds that the matter was sent for investigation and after completion of investigation 9 charge sheet was submitted against the accused under Sections 465, 468, 471, 419 and 109 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 82 of Indian Registration Act, 1908 and cognizance of the offence was taken under the same sections against all the accused except accused no. 3 -Shankar Rawani. The accused Sarju Modi expired and vide order dated 15.07.1987, the proceedings against Sarju Modi were dropped.
13. On 06.01.1993, the charges under Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Sections 465/109, 468/109, 419/109 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the charges under Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Sections 465, 468 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the Petitioner No.4 which were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
14. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses in support of its case. P.W.-1 is Nand Kishore Lal Varma, P.W.-2 is Shankar Verma, P.W.-3 is Raghubir Pandit who is a deed writer and is the author of the Sale Deed No.564 dated 12.02.1983 and Sale Deed No.41 dated 04.01.1983, P.W.-4 is Ganesh Chandra Das who is a clerk in Registration Office, P.W.-5 is Bateshwar Pandit who is a formal witness and has proved the signatures on the rent receipts, P.W.-6 is Hari Singh who is the Informant of the case and P.W.-7 is Binod Kumar Malviya. The prosecution also exhibited some documents during trial.
15. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of petitioners under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded on 16.08.1997 wherein they denied the incriminating evidences put to them and claimed to be innocent. The petitioners did not adduce any oral evidence in their defence. However, they filed certified copy of Voters List of Deoghar Constituency of Vidhan Sabha Election, 1995 which has been marked as Exhibit-A. 10
16. This Court finds that the learned trial court discussed and considered the evidence of the prosecution and also considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and summarized its findings in Para-20 of its judgment. The learned trial court held that the Petitioner No.4 has accepted the fact in her reply filed on 11.12.1995 that she had executed the Sale Deed No. 41 dated 04.01.1983 in favour of her brothers (Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3). It has been recorded that in Exhibit- 5, she has stated that after purchasing 03 decimals in Plot No.63 with Brahma Devi from Ishwari Devi vide Sale Deed No.249 dated 17.07.1948, they have been enjoying the same without any objection. It has been recorded in the trial court judgement that the date of birth of the Petitioner No. 4 in School Admission Register was written as 02.07.1949 and the name of her father is written as Sarju Lal Modi (Accused No. 2) and in this way, Petitioner No.4 was not born in the year 1948. Apart of the above, in the Voter List (Exhibit-11), the age of the husband of the petitioner no. 4 is written as 29 years on 01.01.1980 which also established that Petitioner No.4 was not married in 1948 and both were not born. After appreciating the materials on record, the learned trial court came to a finding that the Petitioner No.4 impersonated Shanti Devi W/o Hari Narayan Modi and sold the share of land of real Shanti Devi to her brothers. The learned trial court also came to the definite findings that the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 abetted the Petitioner Nos.4 to commit the aforesaid offence and they filed the said sale deed executed by the Petitioner No. 4 for the purposes of mutation. After appreciation of evidences on record, the learned trial court convicted the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 for offence under section 465/468/471/109 of Indian penal code and convicted the Petitioner No.4 for offence under sections 465/468/419 of Indian Penal Code and also under section 82 of Indian Registration Act, 1908.
1117. This Court further finds that the learned appellate court also considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, discussed the evidences and materials on record and recorded its findings and summarized its findings in Para-8 which reads as under:
"8. After having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on the case record, I find that the applicant Munni Devi has committed forgery by preparing a false sale deed personating as her aunt Shanti Devi and she has committed an offence punishable u/s. 465 of the Indian Penal Code. I also find that the applicant Munni Devi has committed forgery by preparing the aforesaid sale deed for the purpose of cheating and she has also not committed an offence punishable u/s. 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punishable by either or any of those enactments, but not liable to be punished twice for the same offence. Since the appellants Munni Devi has committed offences u/s. 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, she cannot be held guilty of having committed the same offence u/s. 82 of the Registration Act which provides penalty for making false statements, delivering false copies or translations, false personation and abetment. After perusal of the charge framed against the appellant Munni Devi, I find that the charge reveals that the other appellants abetted Munni Devi pretending to be Shanti Devi W/o Hari Narain Modi and in cheating the Registration Officer. I find that there is no evidence on record in support of the fact that the Registration Officer has been cheated by impersonation. Hence, I am of the opinion that the appellant Munni Devi cannot be held guilty for having committed offence u/s. 419 of the Indian Penal Code.12
The oral and documentary evidences clearly reveal that the appellants Bhagwan Prasad Baranwal, Arvind Barnwal and Gopal Baranwal alias Gopal Modi have committed forgery by getting a false sale deed prepared and hence, they have committed an offence u/s. 465 of the Indian Penal Code. There is evidence against these appellants that they had used the false sale deed as genuine and had applied for mutation in the office of the Circle Officer and hence, they have also committed offence u/s. 471 of the Indian Penal Code. I also find that the false sale deed has been prepared by these appellants for the purpose of cheating Shanti Devi W/o Hari Narain Modi and hence, the appellants Bhagwan Prasad Barnwal, Arvind Barnwal and Gopal Barnwal alias Gopal Modi have committed an offence u/s. 468 of the Indian Penal Code. I am of the opinion that non examination of I.O. has not caused prejudice to the appellants as no contradiction has been taken anywhere in the cross examination of the witnesses."
18. After going through the impugned judgments passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court and also the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that the Petitioner No.4 is the seller of the land-in- question, who, without having right and title over the same sold it to the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sarju Modi who was the father of the Petitioner No. 4 and had identified her as Shanti Devi. The purchasers of the property i.e. Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the brothers of Petitioner No. 4. It has been recorded by the learned courts below that P.W.-3 has stated that the sale deed dated 04.01.1983 (executed by the Petitioner No.4) was written by him at the instance of Petitioner No. 1, 2, 3 and Sarju Modi and it has been stated by this witness that initially the Petitioner No. 4, the executant of the sale deed had started putting her signature as "mu.." in hindi in the first page of the sale deed and subsequently, she signed as Shanti Devi when he 13 asked her to write Shanti Devi. Under the present facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered view that the petitioners have been rightly convicted for the alleged offences.
19. In the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Ibrahim -vs- State of Bihar and Others reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, it has been observed as follows:
"13. The condition precedent for an offence under Sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other accused.
14. An analysis of Section 464 of the Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
2. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practiced upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
In short, a person is said to have made a "false document", if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
15. The sale deeds executed by the first appellant clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of "false documents". It, therefore, remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the 14 land, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the intention of taking possession of the complainant's land (and that Accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor, colluded with the first accused in execution and registration of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category.
16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorized or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of" false document ", it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.
17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorized by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted."
20. This Court finds that there are consistent findings of the learned courts below and there is enough material to support the finding that the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 instigated the Petitioner No.4 to sell the land-in-question in their favour by impersonating herself as Shanti Devi. The fact that Petitioner No. 1 to 3 were own brothers of the Petitioner No. 4 leaves no doubt in the mind of this Court about the offences having been committed by the petitioners and that they have been rightly convicted by the learned courts below. However, the Petitioner No. 4 was found to be not guilty for the offence under Section 419 of IPC and under Section 82 of Indian Registration Act, 15 1908. This court finds that non-examination of Shanti Devi and non-examination of the Investigation Officer are not fatal to the prosecution case. The petitioners have not been able to show as to how they have been prejudiced by non-examination of Shanti Devi or by non-examination of the Investigation Officer of the case. This Court finds that the defence had the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses thoroughly. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgement passed by the learned court below calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.
21. However so far as the sentence of Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, the same calls for some modification under the facts and circumstances of this case. The Petitioner No. 4 was granted the benefit of furnishing a bond under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 have remained in custody for a period of more than a month in connection with the case. The case is related to the year 1983 and the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 have faced the rigors of the criminal litigation for a long period and they have no criminal antecedents. The present age of the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is about 66, 62 and 58 years respectively. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and with a view to secure the ends of justice, the sentence of the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 is modified and confined to the period already under gone in custody with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each to be deposited by them within a period of two months from the date of communication of this judgement to the learned trial court. Upon deposit of the fine amount, the bailors will be discharged from their liability under the respective bail bonds. The 50% of the fine amount is directed to be remitted to the informant of the case after due identification. In case of non-deposit of the fine amount, the petitioners would serve the sentence given by the learned courts below.
1622. This criminal revision is disposed of with the aforesaid modification of sentence of the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3.
23. Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
24. Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to the court concerned.
25. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through "email/FAX".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul