JUDGMENT Sabina, J.:-Yadwinder Singh-petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sections 420, 465,468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) vide judgment dated 19.8.2006 by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala along with his co-accused- Nasib Chand. Vide order of even date passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 420 IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 465 IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 468 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 471 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated 17.1.2009. Hence, the present revision petition. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the learned Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is as under:- “In brief the prosecution story is that the present case was registered on the basis of letter dated 13.3.1998 of Superintendent of Police (City) for verification of the Matric certificate of Constable Yadwinder Singh 1255/PTL and Constable Nasib Chand No. 3587 to the effect that the papers were marked to the then Superintendent of Police, Patiala Shri Paramjit Singh Grewal for comments and he deputed inspector Surjit Singh Anti Fraud Squad for verification who submitted his verification report that the matriculation certificate produced by Constable Yadwinder Singh No.1255 son of Bhag Singh at the time of his recruitment has been verified from Punjab School Education Board Mohali and as per the record this certificate was found bogus. During the investigation concerned record was taken into possession. Accused was arrested. After completion of investigation and all other necessary formalities, challan against the accused was presented.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 420, 465,468, 471 IPC as ordered by the courts below. Learned counsel has submitted that petitioner has already undergone more three months of actual sentence and is facing criminal proceedings since the year 1998. Petitioner has lost his job on account of registration of this case. Petitioner is not a previous convict. Learned counsel has submitted that petitioner has already undergone more three months of actual sentence and is facing criminal proceedings since the year 1998. Petitioner has lost his job on account of registration of this case. Petitioner is not a previous convict. Fine as ordered by the courts below has also been deposited by the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to already undergone by him. 4. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence of imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under Sections 420, 465,468, 471 IPC is maintained. However, sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. ------------