Judgment : This revision is directed by the 1st accused in C.C.No.127 of 1985 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Madras challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, confirming his conviction and sentence under Sec.l35(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act to undergo R.I. for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500 in default to undergo R.I. for one month. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision can be stated as follows: The petitioner along with three others were tried for the offence under Sec.l35 (1)(a)(ii) of Customs Act. For the convenience sake, the petitioner and others be referred to in the order in which they were arrayed as accused in the trial court, in this revision. A-1 the petitioner herein is the husband of A-2 Saraswathi Bai. A-3 is the working partner of A-4 Elumalai and Company. A-2 is the sole proprietrix of M/s.Southern Impex Agencies situate in Door No.254, Thambu Chetty Street, Madras. A-1 was looking after the said business. On 5. 1983 on behalf of M/s.Southern Impex Agencies A-1 has produced copies of export invoice and declaration of exporter for Rs.90,720 signed by A-2 for export to M/s.Mohammed Tahir Trading Company, Singapore through A-4 Elumalai and Company, Customs house agents, by the vessel M.V.Vicroy which was scheduled to leave Madras Port on 15. 1983. On 5. 1983, A-3 filed shipping bill in respect of those 28 bales. On 15. 1983 A-3 sent one Thirumalai and got the consignment of 28 bales transported from the godown of M/s.Southern Impex Agencies to the Madras harbour. On the same day, A-3 also got transported to the same place 44 other bales of handloom fabrics which were being exported to Singapore in respect of which also files bills Ex.P-1 series. A-3 filed an application under Ex.P-2 for examination of the consignment on over time basis. As per the shipping bill the item sought to be exported were 3,360 pieces of handloom cotton coloured bed sheets, packed in 28 bales valued at Rs.90,720 P.W.1 Chakrapani, an appraiser, working in the Madras Customs House examined the 72 cases which were tendered for customs examination for transport found to contain snake skins instead of handloom fabrics. Snake skin is an item of export of which is not allowed under Part I, Schedule I of the Export Policy. Snake skin is an item of export of which is not allowed under Part I, Schedule I of the Export Policy. Thereupon, he maintained a discreet watch along with his staff for arrival of packages inside the harbour area. On 15. 1983, P.W.1 and his staff remained in the shed, waiting for A-4 Customs House agents to represent the shipping bill, but since it was not presented by A-4 customs agent, he sent his staff and asked them to present the shipping bill to enable the Preventive Department to verify the contents of the packages and accordingly it was done. All the 28 bales in question were examined in the presence of A-3, out of which 23 packages were found to contain each a bale resembling the package of hides and skins. Further the abovesaid 23 packages were found to be not normal packages and hence they were cut and examined in detail. By some 51,775 snake skins of sizes rangering from 4“to 7” were packed in bundles. In such a way, that each bundle contained 25 pieces. The value of those snake skins was worked approximately to Rs.9,53,875. Immediately after noticing snake skins inside the packages, A-3 was asked to give statement and accordingly he made statement Ex.P-3 on 15. 1983. Since the goods were under the control of the Customs Department and duly covered under shipping bills, no seizure was effected. P.W.1 took steps to arrest A-1, but he could not be traced. The Collector of Customs was also informed. Thereupon, A-1 appeared before P.W.1 on 6. 1983, 6. 1983, 6. 1983, 6. 1983 and on those days he made statements Exs.P-4 to P-8 respectively. On 13. 1984 he appeared before P.W.6 the then appraiser, Special Investigation Branch, Customs House, Madras and made a further statement Ex.P-10 in his own handwriting. On 4. 1984 he appeared before P.W.7 an appraiser of the said Special Investigation Branch, Madras Customs who assisted P.W.1 in the examination of the consignment and before him, he made another statement Ex.P-11. Thereupon, P.W.7 referred the case for adjudication by the Collector of Customs. Later adjudication papers were sent to the Collector of Customs for according sanction to prosecute the accused. On 11. 1984 the Collector of Customs passed an order of sanction for prosecution of all the four accused for the offence under Sec.l35(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act. Thereupon, P.W.7 referred the case for adjudication by the Collector of Customs. Later adjudication papers were sent to the Collector of Customs for according sanction to prosecute the accused. On 11. 1984 the Collector of Customs passed an order of sanction for prosecution of all the four accused for the offence under Sec.l35(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act. Later the complaint was filed on 2. 1985. P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-11were marked. 3. The plea of the accused and the defence put forward by A-1 is that at the instance of one Ahamed Basha of Singapore, M/s.Southern Impex Agencies were exporting coloured hand-loom bed sheets to M/s.Mohammed Tahir Trading Company, Singapore through A-4 Customs house agents and that prior to the consignment in question the other consignments were also sent and that A-1 had genuinely believed that the packages in question contained coloured handloom bed sheets only and that A-3 did not personally examine and only arranged the transport engaging men and that A-1 and A-2 had no knowledge about any of the packages containing snake skins and that A-4 as customs house agents simply received the packages from M/s.Southern Impex Agencies and transported them to harbour. 4. The learned trial Judge for the reasons stated in the judgment, acquitted A-2 and convicted A-1, A-3 and A-4 under Sec.l35(1)(a)(iii) of the Customs Act and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500 in default to undergo R.I. for one month. On appeal, the learned Appellate Judge confirmed the conviction of A-1 alone while acquitting A-3 and A-4. Hence this revision by the 1st accused. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner only submitted there were no materials whatsoever indicating that the petitioner had knowledge of the contents of the packages attempted to be exported and as such ingredients for an offence under Sec.l35(1)(a)(iii) of the Customs Act had not been made out against the petitioner. He would further submit that the circumstances of the cases clearly indicated that one Ahamed Basha had cheated the petitioner into believing that the goods were handloom textiles. He would further say that it was the duty of the prosecution to prove that the petitioner had attempted to export the consignment in contravention of the provisions of the Export Control Order. He would further say that it was the duty of the prosecution to prove that the petitioner had attempted to export the consignment in contravention of the provisions of the Export Control Order. He would further say that as regards the earlier exports effected by the petitioner to Singapore for similar goods there were no complaints whatsoever and in the light of these facts the version of the petitioner that the goods were provided by one Ahamed Basha without his knowledge is a probable explanation. The other reasons assigned by the Courts below against the petitioner are untenable. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that admittedly the petitioner was working in some other concern and wanted to join in this concern with a view to make money. He further submitted that knowledge in all cases is a matter of presumption. Presumption under Sec.138(A) of the Customs Act is clearly attracted. With clinching circumstances proved beyond doubt, that the offence has been committed by the petitioner and further submit that in view of the settled proposition of law that by preponderance of probability, the offence can be proved by the prosecution and the prosecution cannot be expected to prove the improbabilities. When once the onus cast on the prosecution the burden of the prosecution is discharged by establishing the preponderance of probabilities. It is for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as contemplated under Sec.133(A) of the Customs Act. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor also drew the attention of this Court to the various statements made by the petitioner and submitted that the offence has been clearly made out against the petitioner. He would further submit that the defence of the petitioner that he entered into an agreement with one Ahamed Basha and the said Ahamed Basha cheated him is found to be false and the alleged agreement is a fabricated one and the alleged Ahamed Basha is also a fictitious person in view of the various answers given by him in his statements with regard to the said person that the petitioner does not know the address of the said Ahamed Basha. In view of the proposition of probabilities in this case, the prosecution has proved that the petitioner had guilty knowledge. In view of the proposition of probabilities in this case, the prosecution has proved that the petitioner had guilty knowledge. He would further say that petitioner had believed one Ahamed Basha whose address he does not know and he is unable to give any particulars clearly established that in attempt has been made to escape from his guilt. He would further submit that the petitioner has got previous experience as shipping supervisor for nearly 27 years, that the alleged Ahamed Basha is only a fictitious person and that the facts and circumstances in this case have established beyond any doubt that the petitioner had knowledge of the cases in question containing snake skins. He would further submit that both the courts below had appreciated the evidence of the prosecution and came to the correct conclusion that the petitioner had committed an offence under Sec.l35(1)(a) (ii) of the Customs Act. Lastly, he has submitted that the power of revision is limited and only if there is any miscarriage of justice and any glaring defect in the proved of the both the courts below, this Court can interfere with the finding of the courts below. There is absolutely no scope for interference with the concurrent finding of both the courts below. 7. The point for consideration in this revision is whether the concurrent finding of guilt rendered by both the courts below is illegal improper and is liable to be set aside as contended by the revision petitioner. 8. The charge against the petitioner was that he attempted to export 51,775 pieces of snake skins in 23 bales along with some other cases which contained handloom cotton coloured bed sheets. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that 23 cases in question which contained 51,755 pieces of snake skins were handed over by the petitioner on behalf of M/s.Southern Impex Agencies to A-4. Elumalai and Company for being exported to M/s.Mohammed Tahir Trading Company, Singapore. The contention of the petitioner was that one Ahamed Basha was exporting handloom cotton through M/s.Southern Impex Agencies and that he simply received the packages in wooden boxes and that he had no knowledge about any of the bales containing snake skins and that he was in no way concerned with the export of snake skins to Singapore. The contention of the petitioner was that one Ahamed Basha was exporting handloom cotton through M/s.Southern Impex Agencies and that he simply received the packages in wooden boxes and that he had no knowledge about any of the bales containing snake skins and that he was in no way concerned with the export of snake skins to Singapore. Both the courts below concurrently found that in view of the preponder-ance of probability the prosecution proved that he had guilty knowledge and convicted on the basis of the various statements given by him and the circumstances available in this case. The contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner was that the finding of the courts below is against the criminal jurisprudence but that was negatived. The said contention was put forward before this Court also We have to see how far the said contention is tenable. The learned Central Government Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has got previous experience as he was working as Shipping Supervisor for nearly 27 years and the alleged Ahamed Basha may be a fictitious person and that the prosecution has clearly established beyond any doubt that the petitioner had knowledge of the cases in question containing snake skins. In this connection he drew the attention of this Court to the various statements made by the petitioner which are marked as Exs.P-4 to P-8, P-10 and P-11 before the Customs Officials. The voluntary nature of those statements were not disputed. Those statements clearly established that the packing of 28 cases including 23 cases in question found to contain snake skins were done only in the godown of M/s.Southern Impex Agencies and that the packing was done under the supervision of the petitioner. Significantly the petitioner would say that he does not know the address of the said Ahamed Basha. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out the various answers given by the petitioner in his statements and submitted that the said Ahamed Basha is only a fictitious person and such person has been invented only with a view to escape from any liability. As already submitted the petitioner is not a stranger to the shipping trade and he was working as Supervisor in International Clearing and Shipping Agency for nearly 27 years, and that though there is no direct evidence that the petitioner had knowledge of 23 cases in question found to contain snake skins. As already submitted the petitioner is not a stranger to the shipping trade and he was working as Supervisor in International Clearing and Shipping Agency for nearly 27 years, and that though there is no direct evidence that the petitioner had knowledge of 23 cases in question found to contain snake skins. But from the various circumstances, the prosecution has established beyond any doubt that the petitioner has committed an offence of attempting to export snake skins: 9. In Ex.P-4 statement he had stated as follows: "I am also holding an identity cards Rs.128 X for the past about 15 years. The same was renewed some 2/3 months back for the further period of 3 years. The identity card entitles me to transact and handle customs documents for entry and clearance of vessels (Entry in words and entry outwards of vessels handled by M/s.International Clearing and Shipping Agency, Madras). In the same page he had stated as follows: "I had handed over the said documents namely 3 copies of Export Invoice No.104/83 dated 5. 1983 signed by one Sri B.Saraswathy Bai as Proprietor of M/s.Southern Impex Agencies, Madras-1, 3 copies of declaration of the exported signed by Smt.Saraswathy Bai on behalf of M/s.Southern Impex Agencies, Madras-1, C.R.1 Form No.G.R.I. MAE 299777 dated 5. 1983 for Rs.90,720 CIF, Firm Contractor No.S-43/December..Etc, The above documents were handed over by me to Sri K.Lakshimpathy & Company". The learned Central Government Public Prosecutor relying on Sec.50 of the Customs Act and submitted that in view of the fact that he prepared the invoice and presented the same which are all entry of goods for exportation, he cannot merely disown his interest and he would further submit that the so called agreement between him and one Ahamed Basha whose whereabouts is not known is a fictitious one. Only at the instance of Ahamed Basha he entered all the entries and made arrangements for export and therefore, his liability that he cannot be proceeded with is untenable. According to him, in the background of materials now available in court the petitioner in International Agency and he himself started agency for the purpose of making more money. Admittedly M/s.Southern Impex Agency was started only by him solely for export of articles, viz. bed sheets in the name of his wife-Saraswathy. According to him, in the background of materials now available in court the petitioner in International Agency and he himself started agency for the purpose of making more money. Admittedly M/s.Southern Impex Agency was started only by him solely for export of articles, viz. bed sheets in the name of his wife-Saraswathy. But according to him, the so-called shadow man Ahamed Basha purchased these materials and handed over to him for the purpose of repacking. Significantly when he was questioned he is unable to give any particulars about the so called mysterious person Ahamed Basha. In this connection, the learned Central Public Prosecutor drew the attention of this Court to the statement of the petitioner that he would state Mr.Ahamed Basha is the manager of M/s.Mohammed Tahir Trading Company and he used to meet him either at his office at M/s.International Clearing and Shipping Agency or near M/s.T.G.Elumalai and Company at Jaffer Sarang Street. On earlier to consignments when exported Mr.Ahamed Basha used to meet him the next day near National Cafe at Second Line Beach. In this case also he had earlier informed him that he would him near National Cafe to give him the amount he had spent for packing and loading. He could not give any particulars of the said Ahamed Basha so as to enable the custom authorities to contact him. Further he packed the materials and prepared the invoices as clearly admitted by him in all the statements. In Ex.P-4 he would state "I prepared the invoice No.103/82 dated 18. 1982 as per the details furnished to him by Shri Ahamath Basha and got the invoices signed by his wife B.Saraswathi Bai. He also stated that "he had placed 33 bales in the same condition in which handed over to him is 33 wooden cases procured by him locally as per the direction of Sri Ahamath Basha and gunny covered the wooden cases with steel strap". According to him, during the month of May, 1982 one Sri Ahamath Basha from Singapore met him at his office M/s.International Clearing and Shipping Agency, Madras and introduced himself as a person interested in the import of handloom cotton coloured bed sheets from India for his company M/s.Mohammed Tahir Company, Singapore. He had also stated in his statement that whenever receiving the bale he used to buy cases and pack the same at the godown (vice Ex.P-7). He had also stated in his statement that whenever receiving the bale he used to buy cases and pack the same at the godown (vice Ex.P-7). In Ex.P-8 he had further stated that whenever he is free, he used to attend the packing and at other times his men used to supervise the packing. Whenever he was present he has seen the goods packed in pressed bales, which in turn were packed inside the wooden cases. As regards invoice in question he had stated that his invoice was typed in M/s.Lakshmipathy’s office which is in M/s.T.G.EIumalai and Company. This invoice was typed as per the details specifications given by M/s.Ahamath Basha. The gross-weight, net-weight and the contents of each case as mentioned in the invoice were all furnished by him. He did not weigh the gross net weight in his godown or the contents of the bales before packing. He did not verify the contents of the bales before packing them inside the case. He did not ask Mr.Ahamath Basha as to how he would prepare the invoice which is signed by his wife on behalf of Ms.Southern Impex Agencies without knowing the contents and other details, but he only stated that he simply believed him. He admitted having printed letter head and invoice for M/s.Southern Impex Agencies. The learned Central Government Public Prosecutor drew the attention of this Court to the relevant Sec.l38(A) of Customs Act with regard to the presumption which reads as follows: "Presumption of culpable mental state (1) In any prosecution for an offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the court shall presume the existence of such mental state, but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution (2) For the purpose of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when it existence is established by a preponderance of probability", and submitted that as per this section this Court shall presume the existence of such mental state for an offence under Sec.l35(1)(a) of the Customs Act, but it is for the accused to prove the fact beyond reasonable doubt and not preponderance of probability. In this connection, he drew the attention of this Court to the decision reported in Assistant Collector, C.E., Calicut v. V.P.Sayed Mohammed, (1983)1 Comp.L.J. 313:1983 All.Crl.C. 55:1983 S.C.C. (Crl.) 191: A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 168: 1983 Crl.L.J. 225: (1983)1 S.C.C. 370 : (1983) 53 C.C. 377. .(A) Customs Act (52 of 1962), Sec.l35(b)-Gold (Control) Act (1968), Sec.85(ii)-Seized metal whether gold-proof Goldsmith testing the metal bars on touchstone and certifying them to be gold-His testimony cannot be brushed aside lightly on ground that scientific tests were not carried out-His assessment as to purity may not however be exact-1973 Crl.L.J. 1551 (Ker.), para.4. .(B) Customs Act (52 of 1962), Sec.l35(b)-Gold (Control) Act (1968), Sec.65(ii)-Offence under-Proof-Seizure of contraband gold-In his statement under Sec.342, Crl.P.C. accused admitting that packet containing gold was recovered from him but pleading ignorance as to contents of packet and also denying its ownership-Stating further that he was in possession of the packet for further transmission to another person without his knowledge that it contained gold bars. Held his reply consisted of two distinct matters and were capable of being split-He could be convicted on basis of first part of the statement admitting recovery of gold from him. 1973 Crl.L.J. 1551 (Ker.), para.4. That was a case where the accused was carrying steel trunk and the same was seized by the Customs Authorities and the accused was intercepted and the steel trunk was found to contain 28 gold bars with foreign markings. In the statement under Sec.342, the accused admitted the recovery of the gold bars from him in the steel box, but only pleaded inference of the fact and denied the ownership. It was only in that circumstances the explanation of the accused that he had no knowledge that he was in possession of gold bars, cannot be believed and he can be rightly convicted on the basis of his admission that he brought the said contraband, i.e. steel trunk which contained 28 gold bars. It was only in that circumstances the explanation of the accused that he had no knowledge that he was in possession of gold bars, cannot be believed and he can be rightly convicted on the basis of his admission that he brought the said contraband, i.e. steel trunk which contained 28 gold bars. Relying on the said decision, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the said decision is applicable to the facts of the present case as the petitioner himself has admitted in his statement that he only prepared the invoice and it was he packed the packages and sent the materials for shipping yard to the clearing agency and that the wooden box found to contain snake skins which is prohibited and the plea that he had no knowledge of the same. And only at the instance of one Ahamed Basha he prepared the invoice is untenable when especially it has not been established that any Ahamed Basha is in existence and that there was no such agreement between him and the said Ahamed Basha. On the other hand, from his own statement it is clear that he was not a stranger to this business and he was there for the last 27 years and it was only with a view to make more money he started the business in his wife’s name and that the cases which contained snake skins were exported. The mere fact that two other items were sent and they were not detected and no action was taken in respect of those consignments and the 23 bales in question were found to contain snake skins, would not in any way help the petitioner. We are only concerned with the goods in question which are sought to be exported, which were sent to shipping yard for the customs check by the clearing agency for export as per the invoice is relevant point to be considered. The learned Public Prosecutor also in this connection drew the attention of this Court to another decision reported in 1974 M.L.J. (Crl.) 489, wherein our Supreme Court considered the question of onus of proof in respect of goods that were smuggled and held that: “...The prosecution or the Department is not required to prove its case with mathematical precision to a demonstrable degree; for in all human affairs absolute certainty is a myth and all exactness is a fake”.. It is further held that, “the law does not require the prosecution to prove the impossible. All that it requires is the establishment of such a degree of probability that a prudent man may, on its basis, believe in the existence of the fact in issue. Thus legal proof is not necessarily perfect proof, often it is nothing more than a prudent man’s estimate as to the probabilities of the case”. The other cardinal principle having an important bearing on the incidence of burden of proof is that sufficiency and weight of the evidence is to be considered according to the proof which it was in the power of one side to prove and in the power of the other to have contradicted. Since it is exceedingly difficult if not absolutely impossible for the prosecution to prove facts which are especially within the knowledge of the opponent or the accused, it is not obliged to prove them as part of its primary burden“.... Another point to be noted is that the penalty of confiscation is a penalty in rem which is enforced against the goods. It is not necessary for the Customs Authorities to prove that any particular person is concerned with their illicit importation or exportation. It is enough if the department furnishes prima facie proof of the goods being smuggled stocks.... Many facts relating to the illicit business of smuggling remain in the special or peculiar knowledge of the person concerned in it. On the principle underlying in Sec.106 of the Evidence Act, the burden to establish those facts is cast on the persons concerned and if he fails to establish or explain those facts, an adverse inference of fact may arise against him, which coupled with the presumptive evidence adduced by the prosecution would rebut the initial presumption of innocence in favour of that person and in the result prove him guilty”. The learned Central Public Prosecutor also drew the attention of this Court to the very Secl35(1)(a) and submitted that as per this section: “any person in relation to any goods in any way knowingly concerned in any fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion of any duty chargeable thereon or of any prohibition for the time being imposed under this Act or any other law for the time being in force with respect to such goods, is liable for punishment. So also he relied on the decision reported in Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Sitaram, 1966 M.L.J. (Crl.) 486:A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 955: (1966)1 S.C. W.R. 522:1966 Crl.L.J. 712: (1966)1 S.C.A. 640: (1966)2 S.C.J. 111: (1966)2 S.C.R. 1 , wherein it is stated as follows: "The question whether it cannot be said that any person was concerned in dealing with prohibited goods will depend on the facts found in each case. The words “in any way concerned in any manner dealing with prohibited goods” in the clause are of very wide import and it is not desirable or necessary to define all manner of connection with prohibited goods which might come within the meaning of those words. (Para. 14) When a person does not overt act in relation to prohibited goods which he knows to be such and the act done in consequence of previous arrangement or agreement he would be doing an act concerned in dealing with prohibited goods. In other words any transaction relating to prohibited goods which is done or attempted to be done after some kind of prior arrangement or agreement would amount to the person being concerned in dealing with the prohibited goods. The words "concerned" and "deal" have a wide connotation. The words "concerned in mean interested in involved in mixed up with" while the words "deal with" mean to have something to do with, to concern oneself, to treat, to make arrangement to negotiate with respect to something. Therefore, when a person enters into some kind of transaction with respect to prohibited goods and it is clear that the act is done with some kind of prior agreement or arrangement, such a person is concerned in dealing with prohibited goods. The fact that the act of the person stopped at an attempt to purchase smuggled goods due to the intervention of the police before the deal could be completed does not in any way mean that the person was not concerned in dealing with smuggled goods". (Para. 14) The learned Central Government Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the facts involved in this case clearly established that the petitioner is very much concerned with the export of the prohibited goods in this case. The plea of the petitioner that he had no knowledge and that he believed one Ahamed Basha, is not legally sustainable. (Para. 14) The learned Central Government Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the facts involved in this case clearly established that the petitioner is very much concerned with the export of the prohibited goods in this case. The plea of the petitioner that he had no knowledge and that he believed one Ahamed Basha, is not legally sustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only before this Court the learned Public Prosecutor raised the legal question of Sec.l38(A) and also the decisions that have been put forward now and the learned Public Prosecutor has not brought the same before the lower courts. But there is no bar to raise legal question before this Court even though they were not argued before the lower court and hence I do not find any reason in this contention. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that it is the settled proposition wherein in revision, the power of this Court is limited and the court can interfere with the finding of guilt rendered by courts below only where there was a glaring defect in the procedure or flagrant miscarriage of justice or otherwise there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the finding of the lower courts. On a careful consideration of the entire materials on record, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the concurrent finding of guilt rendered by both the courts below is legal, proper and the findings of the lower courts do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity for this Court to interfere. In this revision accordingly conviction of the petitioner is confirmed. However the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three (3) months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500 and the petitioner has already paid the said fine and he had undergone imprisonment for a period of 6 days and since the offence took place in the year 1983, about 10 years ago and the value of the properties involved is less than one lakh rupees and minimum sentence is warranted, a lenient view may be taken as against the accused and he need not be sent inside again at this length of time. The learned Public Prosecutor leaves the question of sentence to the discretion of this Court. The learned Public Prosecutor leaves the question of sentence to the discretion of this Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and in addition to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 (Rupees one thousand only) in default to undergo R.I. for 2 months while confirming the sentence of Rs.500 already imposed by the courts below and accordingly the sentence is modified. With the above modification, this criminal revision is dismissed.