JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the accused-petitioners against the judgment dated 29.6.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer by which he dismissed the appeal field by the accused-petitioner and upheld the judgment and order dated 16.5.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer by which the learned Magistrate, while acquitting the accused-petitioners for offence under section 468 IPC convicted the accused-petitioners for offence under section 471 IPC and sentenced each of them as under : Name of accused Convicted Under Section Sentence awarded Leeladhar Rohitashva Bhup Singh 471 IPC 2 Years' RI and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further undergo 1 month's imprisonment 2. It arises in the following circumstances:- i. On 12.12.1997, the Chief Medical Health Officer, Jaisalmer lodged a written report Ex.P/ 7 with the S.P. Jaisalmer stating that on 11.12.1997, the accused-petitioners appeared before him and produced order of their appointment as 4th class (Ex.P /2) and also submitted their joining report Ex.P/ 3, P/4 and P/5. Subsequently, it was found that the order Ex.P/2 was not issued by the Department and the same was forged one and in pursuance of that forged appointment order Ex.P/2, the accused- petitioners submitted their joining. 3. After conclusion of the trial the learned trial Magistrate convicted the accused-petitioners for offence under section 471 IPC and sentenced them as stated above. 4. Against the order dated 16.5.2001 passed by the learned Magistrate, the accused-petitioners preferred an appeal and the appeal filed by the accused-petitioners has also been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer. 5. In this revision petition the learned counsel for the accused- petitioners has not challenged the findings of conviction for offence under section 471 IPC recorded against the accused-petitioners by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer vide judgment dated 16.5.2001 and affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer vide judgment dated 29.6.2001 but it has been argued on behalf of the accused-petitioners that looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence of accused-petitioner to the period already undergone by him. 6. I have heard both and gone through the record of the case. 7. 6. I have heard both and gone through the record of the case. 7. Since the findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts below have not been challenged in this revision petition, therefore, this revision petition against conviction is liable to be dismissed. 8. However, on sentence, looking to the fact that accused- petitioners were not allowed to join and they did not get any benefit so far as appointment is concerned and looking to the fact that they are in jail since 29.6.2001, ends of justice would be met if the accused-petitioners are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 9. Accordingly this revision petition filed by the accused- petitioners-Leeladhar, Rohitashva, Bhup Singh against their conviction is dismissed and their conviction for offence under section 471 recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer vide judgment dated 16.5.2001 and affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer vide judgment dated 29.6.2001 is maintained. 10. However, on the point of sentence, this revision petition is partly allowed in the manner that sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer vide order dated 16.5.2001 and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in appeal vide judgment dated 29.6.2001 is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 11. Since the accused-petitioners are in jail, they be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.Revision petition partly allowed. *******