Judgment Ghanshyam Prasad, J. 1. All the three aforesaid criminal revisions arise out of one and the same judgment dated 25.11.1998 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Cri.Appeal No. 31 of 1995 thereby and thereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge has confirmed the judgment dated 29.5.1995 passed by Sri V.P. Sirvastava, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Munger in Complaint Case No. 87C/89. The learned Judicial Magistrate has convicted all the petitioners under Sections 419, 468/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for three years each under both the Sections with direction to run both the sentences concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 28.8.1986, all the petitioners in connivance and collusion to each other get a forged and fabricated sale deed executed in respect of certain lands of the father of the complainant, namely, Sheo Kumar Sah by impersonating him. Petitioners Rajendra Sah. Singheshwar Sah and Chandramani Sah (not petitioner) got the sale deed in question executed in their names. Petitioner, Shailendra Kumar stood as identifier of the executant Sheo Kumar Sah and petitioners Sita Ram Paswan and Vokil Paswan stood as witnesses of the deed. Petitioner Parmanand Singh scribed the sale deed (ext. 3). The complainant got knowledge of about the fraudulent execution of the sale deed on 24.8.1989 and thereafter, he obtained the certified copy of the sale deed from registry office and after consultation with the father, Sheo Kumar Sah, who was in Assam in service lodged complaint case against all the petitioners and Chandramani Sah under the above Sections of the I.P.C. 3. In course of the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses including Sheo Kumar Sah as P.W. 1. The handwriting expert S.E. Raza as P.W. 4 and Binod Kumar Sinha employee of registry office as P.W. 1. Other witnesses are not material witnesses. The learned Judicial Magistrate after consideration of oral evidence as well as documentary evidence found that the sale deed in question, was actually not executed by Sheo Kumar Sah and it was fraudulently got executed by the petitioners by impersonating Sheo Kumar Sah before registry office and, accordingly, he convicted and sentenced the petitioners in a manner said above. 4. The petitioners preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge which were heard by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, who dismissed the same and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate. 5. 4. The petitioners preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge which were heard by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, who dismissed the same and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that neither Sec. 419 I.P.C. nor 468 I.P.C. is attractued in this case. Section 419 I.P.C. will not apply as no loss or arm has been caused to the complainant or his father Sheo Kumar Sah. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court reported in 1965 Supreme Court 333(Kanumukkala Krishnamurthy vs. State of Andra Pradeshy and 1974 Supreme Court 1811 (Ram Jas vs. State of U.P.). 6. Further submission is that original sale deed was never brought on the record only certified copy has been marked. Therefore contents of the sale deed cannot be looked into as being not admissible. In absence of the contents, the petitioners cannot be convicted under Sec. 468 I.P.C. For that the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 1989 PLJR 1173. 7. It is further submitted that conviction of the petitioner Parmanand Singh is wholly illegal and bad in law. He only scribed the sale deed in question in discharge of his professional duty. He is registered scribe and is not expected to identity/recognize the parties. Therefore, he cannot be fastened with any criminal liability. 8. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is quantum of sentence. It is submitted that the learned lower Court did not consider the provisions of Sec.360 of the Cr.P.C. and awarded heavy punishment. It is further submitted that the case is 18 years old. The petitioners have already suffered mental agony for last 18 years. This is sufficient punishment and hence the petitioners may be given benefit of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. 9. So far merit of the case is concerned, there is concurrent finding of two Courts that the sale deed in question is forged and not executed by Sheo Kumar Sah. There is also report of the handwriting expert on this point. This is sufficient punishment and hence the petitioners may be given benefit of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. 9. So far merit of the case is concerned, there is concurrent finding of two Courts that the sale deed in question is forged and not executed by Sheo Kumar Sah. There is also report of the handwriting expert on this point. P.W.4 S.E. Raza after examining the admitted handwriting of Sheo Kumar with the signature on register of the registry office found that both were not of one and the same person P.W. 1 Sheo Kumar Sah also in his evidence denied his signature as well as execution of the sale deed in favour of the aforesaid three persons. 10. Under the circumstances, this Court would not be justified to re-appreciate the evidence under revisional jurisdiction. The Court cannot re-assess or re-appreciate the evidence under revisional jurisdiction unless some glaring feature is pointed out. Therefore, I have no option but to confirm the above findings of the learned lower Court. 11. First of all I would like to deal with the criminal liability of the petitioner Parmanand (Cri.Rev. No. 49 of 1999). This petitioner is neither beneficiary of the sale deed in question nor the person who indentified the executant or the witness the deed. He only scribed the deed in question in discharge of his professional duty. There is no material on the record to show that he participated in conspiracy to forge the deed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted under the circumstances no criminal liability can be fastened against this petitioner. 12. Accordingly, Cri.Revision No. 49 of 1999 is hereby allowed and the conviction and sentence of petitioner Parmanand Singh is set aside. He is also discharged from liability of his bail bonds. 13. However, the case of the other petitioners is quite different. They are directly involved in forging the sale deed in question. Petitioners Rajendra Sah, Singheshwar Sah and Chandramani Sah (not petitioner) are beneficiary of the deed as the sale deed stands in their names. Petitioner Shailendra Kumar is the person who falsely identified the imposter of Sheo Kumar Sah. Other two petitioners Sita Ram Paswan and Vokil Paswan are attesting witnesses of the deed. Therefore they cannot escape liability of forgery of the sale deed in question. 14. Petitioner Shailendra Kumar is the person who falsely identified the imposter of Sheo Kumar Sah. Other two petitioners Sita Ram Paswan and Vokil Paswan are attesting witnesses of the deed. Therefore they cannot escape liability of forgery of the sale deed in question. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since original document was not brought on the record and therefore, contents of the documents (certified copy) cannot be looked into and hence, no inference can be drawn with regard to forgery. For that, the reliance has been placed on decision of this Court reported in 1989 PLJR (Supra). 15. The above submission does not appear to have got any merit. The original deed is in possession of the petitioners. They were asked to produce the original in Court but they refused. Therefore, the above decision under the facts and circumstances is not applicable in this case. Apart from it, it has been established by the cogent evidence that the deed in question was brought in existence by impersonating Sheo Kumar Sah. Therefore, contents of the documents has got no much relevancy. 16. Under the circumstances, this Court has got no doubt that the acts, omission and commission of the petitioners clearly come within Sec. 463 of the I.P.C. Sec. 463 I.P.C. runs as follows : "463. ForgeryWhoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery." 17. Sec. 468 I.P.C. provides punishment if the forgery is committed for the purpose of cheating. Apparently, the document was brought into existence for cheating, Sheo Kumar Sah and cause him part with the property. 18. Thus, in view of above discussions, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the petitioners except Parmanand Singjn is quite justified and it requires no inference under revisional jurisdiction. 19. However, the conviction of the petitioners under Sec. 419 I.P.C. is not sustainable in the eye of law. The cheating has been defined under Sec. 415 of the I.P.C., which is as follows : "415. 19. However, the conviction of the petitioners under Sec. 419 I.P.C. is not sustainable in the eye of law. The cheating has been defined under Sec. 415 of the I.P.C., which is as follows : "415. Cheating.Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". 20. From above definition, it is quite clear that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, there must be dis-honest or fraudulent inducement of the complainant to deliver any property. In the present case as a result of dis-honest and fraudulent execution of sale deed no property under the deed was delivered by the complainant to the petitioner nor any harm was caused to the complainant or Sheo Kumar Sah. Therefore, conviction of the petitioners for cheating by impersonating under Section 419 Cr.P.C.is apparently not maintainable in the eye of law (See 1965 Supreme Court as well as 1974 Supreme Court (Supra). Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners under Sec. 419 Cr.P.C. is hereby set aside. 21. The learned lower Court has awarded sentence of S.I. for three years under Section 468 I.P.C. However, now the position has completely changed. This case is 18 years old. No harm was caused to the complainant or his father. The sale deed in question was never acted upon. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances, it would be proper to modify the sentence awarded by the Court below against the petitioners. 22. In my view, the sentence of six months each with fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each shall meet the end of justice, Accordingly, the sentence awarded by the Court below is hereby modified to the extent of S.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each and in case of default to pay fine the petitioners shall further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The period already undergone in jail by the petitioners shall be set of in the above sentence. 23. 1,000.00 each and in case of default to pay fine the petitioners shall further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The period already undergone in jail by the petitioners shall be set of in the above sentence. 23. With the above modification in the sentence, the Cri.Revision Nos. 91 and 98 of 1999 are hereby dismissed.