S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) A charge-sheet for an offence of cheating was filed against the present two petitioners and two others, namely, Jangiram and Sodar, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaspur. Warrants of arrests were issued against the accused persons. It appears that three of them i. e. the present two petitioners and Jangiram were apprehended but Sodar could not be arrested. The trial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 432 of 1980 (Original No. 442 of 1977) by his judgment dated 28-5-1982 convicted the two petitioners, namely, Rangilal and Budwa alias Budhram under section 420 I. P. C. He sentenced each of them to R. I. for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default S. I. for six months. Accused Jangi was given the benefit of doubt and so was acquitted. ( 2 ) RANGILAL and Budwa alias Budhram preferred an appeal. First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 1982 by his Judgment dated 13-5-1983 upheld the conviction and sentences of the petitioners. The appeal was thus dismissed. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners have filed this revision. Rangilal and another Vs. The State M. P. ( 3 ) THE allegations is that the accused induced Kaliram (P. W. 1) to give them money which would be doubled by them. Kaliram sold his land. Kaliram with Rs. 900/- was taken to a tank away from the village. There the accused prepared two earthen pots and Kalirams Rs. 900/- were allegedly put in one of these two pots. Then Kaliram was told to go in the tank and stand in knee deep water where he was to change the two earthen pots from one hand to the other. Thereafter he was to put one of the two earthen pots in the water and come out with the other. When Kaliram come out of the tank with one of the two pots no money was found in it. The accused told Kaliram that he has thrown the money in the tank. The money was not found in the tank. The accused then suggested to return home. By then it was night time. ( 4 ) SINCE Kaliram had not reached home his wife told Uderam etc. , that Kaliram who had Rs. 900/- with him had been taken towards Bhatomsagar tank by Tombuwalas (living in temporary tents ). The money was not found in the tank. The accused then suggested to return home. By then it was night time. ( 4 ) SINCE Kaliram had not reached home his wife told Uderam etc. , that Kaliram who had Rs. 900/- with him had been taken towards Bhatomsagar tank by Tombuwalas (living in temporary tents ). Therefore Uderam and two others went to search of Kaliram. While Kaliram was returning from towards the tank, he accused had slipped away. Uderam and others met Kaliram while the latter was returning to his village. Then Kaliram, Uderam and others went in search of the accused to their huts, in Beltara. Seeing these people the accused fled away. Subsequently, Kaliram lodged the report Ex. P-I. ( 5 ) THE petitioners in their examination denied the prosecution allegations. They did not examine any witness in defence. ( 6 ) THE trial Magistrate found that the two petitioners cheated Kaliram and deprived him of Rs. 900/ -. This finding has been upheld in appeal by the Court below. The complainant Kaliram was contradicted with his report Ex. P-I about certain facts. These contradictions do not in any manner negative Kalirams evidence about he having been induced to part with Rs. 900/- for being doubled. Nothing has been suggested in his cross-examination to indicate that he would have any reason to falsely implicate the petitioners. The version of Kaliram stands corroborated by the evidence of Uderam (P. W. 2) who along with others had met him on the way. He had told them that petitioner Railgi and his father (Budwa alias Budhram) have robbed him of Rs. 900/ -. Their evidence further finds corroborations from the fact that when Kaliram, Uderam and others went to the huts of the accused, the two petitioners fled away from there. In the report Ex. P-I also these two petitioners have been named as the persons who were instrumental in the whole game. Nothing has been suggested to Uderam also in his cross-examination to show that he would have any reason to falsely depose against the petitioners. ( 7 ) IN view of the evidence and the findings of the two Courts below, learned counsel for the petitioners could not also make out any ground so as to reject the testimony of Kaliram and Uderam. ( 7 ) IN view of the evidence and the findings of the two Courts below, learned counsel for the petitioners could not also make out any ground so as to reject the testimony of Kaliram and Uderam. His main contention, however, was that the sentence of two years R. I. awarded to the petitioners is excessive. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioners for the offence under section 420 I. P. C. is upheld. The sentences that have been awarded to the petitioners are however, modified to six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 750/- (Rs. Seven hundred and fifty), in default simple imprisonment for six months. If the amount of fine is recovered, an amount Rs. 900/- (Rs. Nine hundred) be paid as compensation to complainant Kaliram (P. W. 1 ). Revision partly allowed. .