JUDGMENT G.D. Dube, J. - Both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and order of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Etah, convicting Lakhpat Rai and Satya Prakash under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and directing them to be released under Section 4 (1) of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on their furnishing personal bonds for Rs. 1000/- with one surety each for the same amount for a period of two years to the satisfaction of the convicting Magistrate. They, were allowed ten days time to furnish the bonds. The convicted persons shall hereinafter referred to as the appellants. Aggrieved by the order the appellants filed the appeal assailing the order of conviction. The Government filed its appeal praying that the sentence awarded to the appellants was very inadequate. It has prayed for enhancement of sentence. the two appeals are being disposed by the judgment. 2. The prosecution case was that on 25.6.65 in Mohalla Jai Jai Ram Town, Police Station Kasganj, district Etah the appellants in furtherance of their common intention cheated Sheo Dayal Gupta by inducing him to deliver a sum of Rs. 4,200/- by pledging nickel scap whereas it was later on disclosed to be iron and thereby had committed an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. 3. A report had been sent by Sheo Dayal Gupta, to the Collector of the District on 11.10.66.on the basis of this report a case was registered on 11.10.66, After an investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellants. The prosecution has examined fifteen witnesses in the lower court. The appellants pleaded not guilty. They had examined three witnesses in defence. The trial court found the offence established against the appellants and passed the impugned order. 4. Sri Devendra Swarup, learned counsel for the appellants urged that he does not press the grounds relating to conviction. He simply states that more than 14 years have elapsed after preferring this appeal and during this period there is no complaint that the appellants had misconducted themselves and the maintenance of conviction passed will have a stigma on the appellants and that would be sufficient to keep the appellants urged that even if the order is maintained then the period of probation be reduced to one year. 5. 5. Sri H.P. Tripathi, learned Government Counsel urged that even though the fraud was committed in respect of small amount of punishment should be exemplary so that others may learn a lesson and may not try to commit fraud in their ordinary course of business transaction. 6. I have gone through the judgment of the lower court and the paper book prepared in respect of this case. There is no error in holding the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. There was documentary as well as evidence of tape recorded statement in which the appellants are said to have admitted their guilt in a conversation with a reporter. 7. Sri Divendra Swarup has stated that Lakhpat Rai has died. This statement of' Sri Swarup has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the state. From the statement of Lakhpat Rai under Section 313 I.P.C. it transpires that he was 70 years of age on 5.9.73, the date of his statement. In this way on this date he would have been more than 87 years if he was alive. Consequently, I have no reason to disbelieve the statement of Sri Divendra Swarup that Lakhpat Rai has died. 8. Considering the long gap between the conviction and hearing of his appeal I do not feel that there is any need of directing the appellants to furnish bail bonds to keep peace. It would be better if the appellants are admonished under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Divendra Swarup has drawn my attention to Rajbir v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1278 It is stated that even though this case relates to a Government servant the ratio of this case can be applied to the appellants also. 10. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and also the peculiar circumstance of this case I direct that the appellant shall appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate who shall release them after due admonition. If Lakhpat Rai, the appellant, has died then this order shall be executed only against the other appellant. In these circumstances I do not feel it necessary to direct the appellant to enter into a bond as directed by the Lower Court. 11. Government Appeal No. 569 of 1976 is rejected. If Lakhpat Rai, the appellant, has died then this order shall be executed only against the other appellant. In these circumstances I do not feel it necessary to direct the appellant to enter into a bond as directed by the Lower Court. 11. Government Appeal No. 569 of 1976 is rejected. Appeal No. 300 of 1976 is also rejected with the modification in the order of the Lower Court as stated above. After receipt of the file the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall issue notice for execution of the order as directed above.