ORDER Jasbir Singh, J. - This order will dispose of two revision petitions bearing Criminal Revision Nos. 1113 of 1988 and 1157 of 1988, arising out of the same impugned judgment. 2. Vide judgment and order dated 27.9.1986, petitioners along with Gurinder Singh, Jai Singh and Baljit Singh were convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 468, 120-B Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years each for commission of an offence under Section 468 Indian Penal Code and were ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. They were also directed to undergo sentence of RI for one year each for commission of an offence under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code and were ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo further RI for a period of three months for each of the offences. 3. Petitioners and other accused, referred to above, filed two separate appeals, which were decided by the appellate Court below vide judgment dated 7.10.1988. Appeal qua Gurinder Singh was allowed and he was acquitted of the charges. Appeals of the petitioners were dismissed on merits. However, by showing leniency to them, their sentence was reduced from two years to one year for commission of an offence under Section 468 Indian Penal Code and from one year to six months for commission of an offence under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. Hence, these revision petitions. 4. It was case of the prosecution that estate of Nagina Singh devolved upon his grand children i.e. petitioners and Surjit Singh, Pritam Kaur, Karnail Kaur, Sito, Gurdev Kaur and Bant Kaur @ Ghona. On 3.7.1979, mortgage deed was shown to have been executed by Ghona @ Bant Kaur, Sadhu Singh and Major Singh in person for themselves and Surjit Kaur, Pritam Kaur, Harpal Kaur and Gurdev Kaur through Sucha Singh - one of the petitioners, as their attorney. That mortgage deed was executed in favour of Gurinder Singh and was attested by Jai Singh and Baljit Singh as attesting witnesses. Smt. Bant Kaur filed a complaint wherein she had stated that she had never appeared before competent authority, in her place, Gurdev Kaur had appeared and executed mortgage deed of her share also. Her thumb impression was forged by the petitioners and other accused by hatching a criminal conspiracy. Smt. Bant Kaur filed a complaint wherein she had stated that she had never appeared before competent authority, in her place, Gurdev Kaur had appeared and executed mortgage deed of her share also. Her thumb impression was forged by the petitioners and other accused by hatching a criminal conspiracy. On these allegations, FIR No. 21 dated 20.2.1980 was registered for commission of offences under Sections 420, 471, 468, 120-B Indian Penal Code. Investigation was conducted as per rules. 5. During investigation, original mortgage deed was taken into possession and was sent to Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur for the purpose of comparison of thumb marks of Ghona @ Bant Kaur with her standard thumb marks and with standard thumb marks of Gurdev Kaur - one of the petitioners. As per report, mortgage deed in question did not bear thumb marks of Bant Kaur. Rather it bears thumb marks of Gurdev Kaur. On completion of investigation, final report was filed in Court. Petitioners, along with their co-accused were charge- sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. During trial, some files of the Court below were burnt, including original documents of this case. After getting necessary orders from the competent authority, record was re-constructed. Prosecution then led evidence to prove guilt of the petitioners and other accused. On completion of prosecution evidence, their statements were recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, wherein they denied all the allegations appearing against them in prosecution evidence and pleaded false implication. However, they led no evidence in defence. 7. Trial Court, on appraisal of evidence, oral as well as documentary, found the petitioners and their co-accused guilty and they were convicted and sentenced as found mentioned in para 2 of this order. 8. They went in appeal. Appeal qua Gurinder Singh was allowed, however, appeals of the petitioners and co-accused were dismissed on merits, sentence was modified and reduced. 9. Shri J.S. Chahal, Advocate appearing for the petitioners has vehemently contended that original mortgage deed and report made by Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur were not available on record. No conviction could be ordered on the basis of copies of those documents, since those were not proved as per law. To support his contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment in Dinanath and others v. State of U.P., 1983 Crimes 831. 10. No conviction could be ordered on the basis of copies of those documents, since those were not proved as per law. To support his contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment in Dinanath and others v. State of U.P., 1983 Crimes 831. 10. In the alternative, he has stated that alleged occurrence had taken place in the year 1979, FIR was recorded on 20.2.1980, trial had concluded in the year 1986, their appeals were decided by the Court below on 7.10.1988 and since thereafter, their revision petitions are pending. By referring to these facts, counsel has stated that petitioners had already suffered a lot financially and mentally, they are not the previous convicts, three of the petitioners are old individuals of age of more than 60 years and others have also passed half of their life and are settled with their families. He prayed that their sentence be reduced to the one already undergone by them or they may be released on probation. 11. Arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners have vehemently been opposed by Mr. G.S. Gill, A.A.G., Punjab, appearing for the respondent. He, by referring to the evidence on record, stated that the guilt of the petitioners was fully proved on record, as such, their conviction and sentence was justified. He further stated that leniency had already been shown to them by the appellate Court below by reducing their sentence. He also brought it to the notice of the Court that the burnt record was re-constructed after getting appropriate orders from the competent authority, as such, contention of counsel for the petitioners that conviction, which is based merely on the copies of the documents, cannot be sustained, is not justified. He prayed that revision petitions, having no substance, be dismissed. Counsel for the parties heard. 12. It is apparent from the record that property of Nagina Singh had devolved upon his grand children i.e. the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 1113 of 1988 and upon Pritam Kaur, Karnail Kaur and Ghona @ Bant Kaur. Mortgage deed was executed in favour of Gurinder Singh, one of the accused, on 3.7.1979. Except share of Bant Kaur, there was no dispute regarding share of any other shareholder, as mentioned above, regarding property, which was subject matter of mortgage deed. Mortgage deed was executed in favour of Gurinder Singh, one of the accused, on 3.7.1979. Except share of Bant Kaur, there was no dispute regarding share of any other shareholder, as mentioned above, regarding property, which was subject matter of mortgage deed. Record shows that as per contents of mortgage deed, share of Gurdev Kaur - petitioner No. 1 was mortgaged through her attorney Sucha Singh. So far as share of Bant Kaur is concerned, she is stated to have appeared before the Sub Registrar and had thumb-marked the mortgage deed. 13. During investigation and trial, it came out on record that the mortgage deed in question did not bear thumb impression of Bant Kaur. A comparison was got made and it turned out to be thumb impression of Gurdev Kaur, the petitioner. All the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 1113 of 1988 are members of the same family, they cannot say that this fact of impersonation was not within their knowledge as was the allegation against them. Both the courts below have found it, as a matter of fact, that it was Gurdev Kaur, who impersonated as Bant Kaur and put her thumb impression on the mortgage deed. 14. The judgment in Dinanaths case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. In that case, record was burnt, however, file was not reconstructed as per rules and the accused therein were convicted on the basis of copies of documents only. In the present case, situation is altogether different. When record was burnt, after getting appropriate orders from the competent authority, file was reconstructed and judgment was passed on the basis of reconstructed documents. It is also clear from record that original mortgage deed was sent for comparison of thumb impression of Bant Kaur and Gurdev Kaur, the petitioner to the Finger Print Bureau. Under these circumstances, this Court feels that the order of conviction and sentence was perfectly justified. Accordingly on merits, these revision petitions are dismissed. 15. Now, it is to be seen whether in view of facts and circumstances of this case, petitioners are entitled to any leniency qua sentence. This Court feels that purpose of criminal law justice system is not only to bring discipline, peace and harmony in the society but is also to give an opportunity to an erring individual to reform himself. 16. This Court feels that purpose of criminal law justice system is not only to bring discipline, peace and harmony in the society but is also to give an opportunity to an erring individual to reform himself. 16. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2001(9) SCC 161, had opined that in appropriate cases, reformative approach is required to be adopted by the Courts. 17. Similarly, in Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 577, Honble Supreme Court, by taking note of a fact that occurrence had taken place more than a decade ago, took a lenient view and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the convicts in that case. 18. The dispute in this case is a family affair. Complainant and the accused except attesting witnesses were closely related to each other. During her statement Bant Kaur had specifically stated that she had no personal enmity with the accused and the attesting witnesses. As per averments made and not controverted, all the accused are not previous convicts. During trial, no previous conviction was proved and brought on record. It has also been stated by counsel for the petitioners that during pendency of these revision petitions, Bant Kaur had sold her share to Gurinder Singh, mortgagee, as such, she had suffered no loss. It is also apparent from the records that the petitioners continued to face agony of trial for a long period of six years. Their appeal was decided in the year 1987 and since thereafter, their revision petitions are pending. This Court feels that during this period, they might had suffered financially and mentally as well. Complainant and some of the petitioners belong to one family. If at this stage, they are ordered to be sent behind the bars, this Court feels that it will not be conducive towards peace and harmony amongst the family members. Rather it will revive old ill feelings which may have subsided with the passage of time. Three of the petitioners, as per record, are more than 60 years of age, one of them is a lady. 19. Keeping in view facts and circumstances, as referred to above, they deserve leniency for rehabilitation in life. Record shows that the petitioners had undergone about one month of actual sentence. Accordingly, sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 19. Keeping in view facts and circumstances, as referred to above, they deserve leniency for rehabilitation in life. Record shows that the petitioners had undergone about one month of actual sentence. Accordingly, sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Fine is maintained. With above mentioned modification qua sentence, these revision petitions stand disposed of. Order accordingly.