J. C. MISHRA, J. This revision has been filed by the accused Sriram challeng ing the judgment and order dated 30th October, 1982 passed by Munsif Magistrate Ghazipur convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468, 419, 420 and 511,1. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous im prisonment for 6 months for each count and judgment and order dated 27-7-83 passed by the Special Judge, Ghazipur dis missing the appeal. 2. List revised. None appears for the revisionist. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record. 3. The prosecution case is that the revisionist claiming himself to be a civil court employee posted in the court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia, produced a forged letter and attempted to take possession of the record of Case No. 217 of 1972, Shivanand Bharti v, Vindhyachal Rai The conduct of the ac cused was suspicious and he was not pos sessed of any requisition. Therefore, on a thorough enquiry it came to light that the accused had non-concern with the civil court, Ballia and the letter produced by him was forged. He also gave a false iden tity. 4. A report was lodged and after in vestigation a charge -sheet was submitted against the revisionist. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Badri Lal, Mukteshwar Kushwaha, munsarim of the court of Mun sif Muhammdabad, Sri Virendra Nath Srivastava, Advocate, and Madhumangar Rai, Advocate besides the Investigating Officer. The learned Magistrate found that the prosecution case was trustworthy he, therefore, convicted and sentenced the revisionist as aforesaid. 6. The accused felt aggrieved, preferred appeal, which was decided by the Special Judge, Ghazipur by a detailed reasoned order. He found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it on merit. Felt ag grieved the accused preferred this revision. 7. In the grounds of revision it has been stated that none of witnesses knew the accused since before and, therefore, the identity was not established. A perusal of the order would indicate that the process server knew the accused since before the incident. His evidence was ac cepted by the Magistrate as also by the appellate court. Sri Virendra Nath Srivas-tava, Advocate also identified the accused in the court and stated that he was the person who had attempted to procure"" record from the clerk Mukteshwar. His evidence was ac cepted by the Magistrate as also by the appellate court. Sri Virendra Nath Srivas-tava, Advocate also identified the accused in the court and stated that he was the person who had attempted to procure"" record from the clerk Mukteshwar. The advocate had no reason to implicate the accused falsely in the case. 8. The courts below have also con sidered and dealt with all the pleas raised before them. The judgments do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 9. The incident had taken place long before in the year 1978 and this revision is pending since 1983. Considering this aspect I feel inclined to convert the sen tence of imprisonment in fine. 10. The revision is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction, the ac cused is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000/-under Section 420/511,1. P. C. and to a fine of Rs. 500/- for other offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 419/511, I. P. C. The entire fine imposed shall be deposited within a period of 3 months; in default the revisionist shall undergo imprisonment for three months under Section 420/511, I. P. C. and 1 month for other offences. Revision partly allowed.