Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. This order will dispose of four criminal revision petitions bearing No. 579 of 1990, 580 of 1990, 609 of 1990 and 617 of 1990. For facility of dictating order, facts are being taken from Criminal Revision No.579 of 1990. 2. Petitioners, who are nine in number, along with others, who are petitioners in other revision petitions, were convicted for commission of offences under Section 419/420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 468/471 I.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepur, on February 21, 1989, and following sentences were awarded to them : "I sentence the accused persons to undergo R.I. for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months each for an offence under Section 419/420 read with Section 120-B go the Indian Penal Code. All accused are further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each in respect of offence under Section 468/471 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences shall run concurrently." 3. Against judgment and order above mentioned, four different appeals were filed. All those appeals were dismissed by the appellate Court below vide its judgment dated July 14, 1990. By filing this revision petition, the petitioners have questioned the validity of above mentioned judgment passed by the Court below. 4. As the appellant from the perusal of record and arguments addressed, that the petitioners and other co-accused had allegedly got executed a sale deed on March 17, 1988 in respect of land, which was the ownership of Lachhmi Bai, Maya Bai, Asso Bai, Tharo Bai and Bharawan Bai. It was the allegation that Asso Bai and Tharo Bai had died long before the execution of that sale deed and by impersonating, sale deed was got executed. All the petitioners/accused were challaned, charge sheeted and tried for the above mentioned offences. Trial Court ultimately found them guilty and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. 5. It is not necessary to divulge into the merits of this case as counsel appearing for the petitioners has addressed arguments on the regarding quantum of sentence. He has stated that petitioners have been facing prosecution since the year 1983 when first information report was recorded against them. Their trial continued till February 21, 1989. 5. It is not necessary to divulge into the merits of this case as counsel appearing for the petitioners has addressed arguments on the regarding quantum of sentence. He has stated that petitioners have been facing prosecution since the year 1983 when first information report was recorded against them. Their trial continued till February 21, 1989. Their appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court in the year 1990 and since then their revision petitions are pending. As such, sword of conviction had been hanging over their heads. Counsel has further stated that their conviction and .pendency of the proceedings in this Court had a desired effect and they have now reformed themselves, as they have not indulged in any such criminal activity after their conviction by the trial Court. He has further stated that all the petitioners are very old persons, as they are between the age of 60 to 70 years and if at this old age, they are directed to undergo the sentence awarded to them, they will probably die in jail and it will have an adverse effect over their families also. He further stated that the complainant and the petitioners/accused are co-villagers and if they are sent behind the bars at this stage, it will have an adverse effect so far as peace and harmony in the village are concerned. He further stated that petitioners had remained behind the bars for about one month during their trial and after their conviction. By stating these facts, he prayed that their sentence of imprisonment beset aside and they be released on probation. 6. This prayer has vehemently been opposed by the Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, by stating that such like crimes are on the increase and if petitioners are given lenient treatment in this case, some other individuals will feel encouraged and would commit similar offences and as such, it will have an adverse effect so far as discipline in the society is concerned. He prays that since sentence awarded to the petitioners is in proportion to the offences committed by them, their revision petitions be dismissed. 7. This Court feels that the purpose of criminal law justice is not only to bring peace, harmony and discipline in the society but is also to give an opportunity to an erring individual to reform himself so that there is an ever lasting peace in the society. 7. This Court feels that the purpose of criminal law justice is not only to bring peace, harmony and discipline in the society but is also to give an opportunity to an erring individual to reform himself so that there is an ever lasting peace in the society. This view finds support from a judgment of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State(Delhi Admn.), 2001 (9) Supreme Court Cases 161 : [2000(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 7 (SC)], wherein in paragraph 7, it was observed as under: "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. As act of balancing is, what is needed in such case : a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment of the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. With the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record, would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limit of law." 8. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record, would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limit of law." 8. To the same effect is the opinion expressed by Honble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1986 (1) Supreme Court 372, wherein by taking lenient view of the circumstances involved in that case, sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. However, fine was enhanced and ordered to be paid, by way of compensation, to the legal representatives of the deceased. 9. In Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bengal, 1998 (1) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 587 : [1998(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 718 (Pb. & Hry.)], their Lordships of Supreme Court, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place 18 years earlier to the decision of appeal and the parties were relatives, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. 10. To the same effect is the opinion expressed by two Division Benches of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, 2002(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 600 : [2002(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 484 (Pb. & Hry.)] and Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 467 : [1997(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 75 (Pb. & Hry.)]. 11. Keeping in view ratio of the above mentioned judgments and also the fact that all the petitioners are of old age and, as informed by the counsel for the petitioners, they are first offenders and have not indulged in any such activity after their convictions, their conviction is upheld. However, their sentence of imprisonment is set aside and they are ordered to be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of one year. They shall file an undertaking before the trial Court that they shall not indulge in any illegal activity during the period of one year and will lead life of a disciplined citizen. They shall file bond and undertaking within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. They shall file an undertaking before the trial Court that they shall not indulge in any illegal activity during the period of one year and will lead life of a disciplined citizen. They shall file bond and undertaking within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, they shall pay Rs.3,000/- each as costs of litigation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, revision petitions shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 12. Revision petitions are disposed of with the above mentioned modifications.