Judgment The First accused, Pandi, in C.C.No.75 of 1980 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate No.1, Madurai, is the revision petitioner herein. He has filed this revision petition under Sections 397 and 401, Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 9.12.1981 in C.A.No.267 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, setting aside the conviction of the revision petitioner by the trial Court under Section 420 read with Section 511, Indian Penal Code, but only confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 473, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months with respect to the said offence. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the revision petitioner and the second accused, who was acquitted, committed offences, in that both of them counterfeited the seal of the Entertainment Tax Officer with the intention of using the same for the purpose of committing forgery and defrauding the Entertainment Tax Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. It is also the case of the prosecution that on22.9.1976 at about 3.30 p.m., at Maharaja Theatre at Tiruparangundram, they used the same and affixed the forged seal of cinema tickets of various denominations and kept them as genuine. It was further alleged that the second accused was found in possession of counterfeit seal of the Entertainment Tax Officer, numbering machine and other counterfeiting devices. Hence, the charge under Section 473 and Section 420 read with Section 511, Indian Penal Code, were framed by the trial Court against both of them. They pleaded not guilty to the charges. 3. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Ex.P-1 and P-2 were filed and marked. M.O.1 and M.O.2 numbering machine, M.O.3 stick used for adjusting the number, M.O.4 series two ink pads, M.O.5 scries printing ink bottles, M.O.6 painting ink (small tin) and M.O.7 series 13 cinema tickets were produced before the trial Court. 4. On the evidence available on record the trial Court held that no evidence was made against the second accused and acquitted him. 4. On the evidence available on record the trial Court held that no evidence was made against the second accused and acquitted him. But, so far as the revision petitioner is concerned, the trial Court held that the prosecution had established its case that the revision petitioner has committed the offences under Sections 473 and 420 read with Section 511, Indian Penal Code, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The second accused was acquitted under Section 248(1), Criminal Procedure Code. Aggrieved by the above decision of the trial Court the first accused preferred C.A.No.267 of 1981 before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai. 5. The learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai had set aside the conviction of the revision petitioner by the trial Court under Section 420 read with Section 511, Indian Penal Code, but confirmed the conviction against the revision petitioner under Section 473, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months thereon. 6. Mr. N.Natarajan, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the lower appellate Court is not correct in confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 473, Indian Penal Code, since there is no evidence available on record to establish that an offence had been committed by him under Section 473, Indian Penal Code. 7. The point for consideration in this revision is: “Whether the lower appellate Court has committed any error in confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 473, Indian 8. It will be relevant, if Section 473, Indian Penal Code, is quoted. Section 473, Indian Penal Code reads as follows: “Whoever makes or counterfeits any seal, plate or other instrument for making an impression, intending that the same shall be used for the purpose of committing any forgery which would be punishable under any Section of this Chapter other than Section 467, or with such intent, has in his possession any such seal, plate or other instrument, knowing the same to be counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine”. 9. 9. A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.2 to P.W.4 clearly shows that the Sales Tax Authorities inspected the Office in Maharaja Theatre at Tiruparangundram on 22.9.1976 and at that time they found M.Os.1 to 7 at that place and they were seized by them. The revision petitioner had given Ex.P-2 confessional statement before the Sales tax authorities. P.W.4 had reduced the said statement into writing and P.W.2 was also present at that place when the said statement was written. The revision petitioner had given the statement on 22.9.1976 that M.Os. 1 to 7 which were in his custody were seized by the authorities concerned. There is absolutely no reason for P.Ws,2 to 4 falsely implicate the revision petitioner in this case. It is only on the direction of P.W.1, the Sales tax authorities came and inspected the theatre. P.W.1 has specifically stated in his evidence that on information he had gone to the theatre and that in the presence of P.Ws.2 to 4, M.Os.1 to 7 were seized by him. Thus, on a careful scrutiny on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, it is seen that on 22.9.1976 P.Ws.2 to 4 went to Maharaja Theatre at Tiruparangundram and when they inspected the said premises they found M.Os.1 to 7 in possession of the revision petitioner, who was in charge of the said theatre:. 10. Further, it is clearly seen from Ex.P-2 confessional statement given by the revision petitioner that he had used the seal unauthorisedly. Under the circumstances, the Lower Appellate Court is correct in confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 473, Indian Penal Code. 11. So far as the sentence of three months’ rigorous imprisonment imposed under Section 473, Indian Penal Code, against the revision petitioner by the lower appellate Court is concerned, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, that a lenient view may be taken by this Court. It is pointed out that the revision petitioner was arrested on 22.9.1976 and the charge-sheet was only filed against him on 25.4.1980 before the trial Court i.e., about 3 years and 7 months. It is also pointed out that the revision petitioner was arrested on 22.9.1976 and released on bail on 24.9.1976 and thereby undergone imprisonment for 3 days. It is pointed out that the revision petitioner was arrested on 22.9.1976 and the charge-sheet was only filed against him on 25.4.1980 before the trial Court i.e., about 3 years and 7 months. It is also pointed out that the revision petitioner was arrested on 22.9.1976 and released on bail on 24.9.1976 and thereby undergone imprisonment for 3 days. Further, it is pointed out that after the conviction by the lower appellate Court on 9.12.1981 till the bail application was moved before this Court on 17.12.1981 he was in jail. So, for about 7 days, it is pointed out, that the revision petitioner was in jail subsequent to the judgment of the lower appellate Court on 9.12.1981. Thus it is pointed out that the revision petitioner had already undergone imprisonment for 12 days. It is also pointed out that at the time of trial the revision petitioner was aged 32 years and that he must be about 36 years now. Further, it is submitted on behalf of the revision petitioner that he is a first offender and that he was getting a monthly salary of Rs.150/-only at the time of the occurrence in this case. 12. Mr. N.Natarajan, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner also relies on the following observation of His Lordship of the Supreme Court in Inder v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 4S.C.C. 484: (1980) Crl.L.J. 328: (1980) S.C.C. (Crl.) 100: A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 311: “In this appeal by special leave the appellant has been convicted under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/-. He has also been convicted under Section 85(ii) of the Gold Control Act and sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/-. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. It appears that the appellant has already spent about a month in jail and after a lapse of ten years it does not appear to be conducive to the ends of justice to send the appellant back to jail. In these circumstances, therefore, while upholding the convictions of the appellant, we would reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already served. In lieu of the sentence remitted we impose a fine of Rs.15,000/- under each count, total being Rs.30,000/-in default six months’ rigorous imprisonment on each count. In these circumstances, therefore, while upholding the convictions of the appellant, we would reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already served. In lieu of the sentence remitted we impose a fine of Rs.15,000/- under each count, total being Rs.30,000/-in default six months’ rigorous imprisonment on each count. The appellant is allowed to pay Rs.10,000/-within a month from to-day and the balance of the amount to be paid within six months from to-day. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed.” 13. Mr. A.N.Rajan, learned Government Advocate leaves the question of sentence to the discretion of this Court. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the revision petitioner is aged only 36 years now, and that he is also a first offender, that the charge-sheet in the instant case had been filed about 3 years and 7 months subsequent to the arrest of the revision petitioner and that he had already undergone imprisonment for 12 days, instead of sending him once again to the jail, it will be in the interests of justice that the sentence of three months imposed by the lower Court is modified into one of the period already undergone with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. With the above modification in sentence, the revision petition is dismissed. The revision petitioner is given two months’ time for to-day for the payment of the fine before the Court of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate No.1, Madurai.