JUDGMENT Jaya Roy, J.- Petitioners have filed the instant revision application against the judgment dated 17.6.2006 passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar Choubey, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-IV, Dhanbad, in Criminal Appeal No.5 of 1999, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment dated 21.12.98 passed by Manzoor Hassan, learned Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.) Dhanbad in R.C. Case Nos. 3 and 9 of 1984 (T.R. No. 4/98) has been upheld. By the said judgment learned Special Judicial Magistrate has been pleased to convict the petitioners and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for one year each for the offences under Section 120B I.P.C. They have been further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each for the offence under Section 471 I.P.C. and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo, R.I. for one month. They have been further sentenced to undergo R.I., for one year for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo R.I. for one month each. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.1.1984 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SPE/CBI, Dhanbad lodged a FIR against eight accused persons namely Sri Indrajit Singh, Sri K.K. Das, Sri Hanuman Singh, Sri B.N. Singh, Md. Motima, Sri Ramjit Srivastava (all are underground loader), Sri S. Pandya, Project Officer and Sri R.K. Arora with an allegation that he received a credible information that accused Nos. 1 to 6, after entering into criminal conspiracy with Accused Nos. 7 and 8, maneuvered their appointment as underground loader on forged and fabricated appointment letters and in order to conceal their misdeeds they have adhered illegal documents in order to show their appointment being genuine one. The further case of the prosecution was that a forged appointment letter bearing No. GM/ AR-II/ appointment/81/6472 dated 17.11.81 which is purported to have been signed by one Sri S.K. Sinha, the then General Manager Area-II, has been manipulated on the records. The further case of the prosecution was that in order to conceal their misdeeds accused persons again manipulated to get Accused Nos. 1 to 6 shifted from the initial place of posting i.e. Bhurungia Project. The further case of the prosecution was that in order to conceal their misdeeds accused persons again manipulated to get Accused Nos. 1 to 6 shifted from the initial place of posting i.e. Bhurungia Project. It is alleged that they manipulated some representation on behalf of the accused Nos. 1 to 6 dated May, 1981, i.e. long before the alleged forged appointment letters. They have also maneuvered forged letter on their representation petition forwarded by the accused No.7 with his recommendation under the signature dated 25.5.81 which formed the basis for issuance of transfer letter vide office order No. BCCL-P.A.I/OO/81/4831742 dated 26/27.11.81 duly signed by Sri S.K. Banerjee, Personnel Manager, Karmic Bhawan, BCCL, Dhanbad. The further case of the prosecution was that the involvement of accused No.8, Sri R.K. Arora in the said conspiracy is very much evident from the fact that although no appointment letter duly dispatched from G.M. Area-II, was ever received in Bhurungia Project still said Mr. Arora not only allowed accused Nos. 1 to 6 to join but also issued release order in favour of Accused Nos. 1 to 6. On the aforesaid ground FIR was registered under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the I.P.C. vide R.C. Case NO.03 of 1984 against the aforesaid eight persons. 3. Another F.I.R. bearing R.C. Case No. 9/84 dated 9.5.84 was again drawn by Sri AK Asthana, C.B.1. Inspector, Dhanbad under Section 120B read with Section 420, 467,468 and 471 of the I.P.C. against Sri Ramakant Dubey, Haidar AIi, Sri Madan Lal Sharma, Sri Bhusan Singh (all are underground loader) Sri S. Pandya, Project Officer, Sri R.K. Arora and in the said FIR it was stated that accused Nos. 1 to 4 entered into criminal conspiracy with accused Nos. 5 and 6 and thereby secured employment on the basis of fictitious and forged appointment letters purported to have been issued under signature of Sri S.K. Singh, the then General Manager of Area-II BCCL and joined their duty at Bhurungia Project on 18.12.81. It was further alleged that long before their joining on duties, accused Nos. 1 to 4 had submitted a representation i.e. on 15.6.81 for their transfer from Bhurungia Project to some other colliery of Area-IV and said representation was recommended by accused Nos. It was further alleged that long before their joining on duties, accused Nos. 1 to 4 had submitted a representation i.e. on 15.6.81 for their transfer from Bhurungia Project to some other colliery of Area-IV and said representation was recommended by accused Nos. 5 and 6 having full knowledge that in May 1981 the accused persons were not employee of the BCCL but the accused Nos. 5 and 6 issued release order in favour of the accused Nos. 1 to 4. 4. Both the FIR have been' amalgamated and after investigation Mr. Asthana submitted charge-sheet under Section 120B read with Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 of the I.P.C against all persons including the petitioners. 5. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses and produced several documents which have been marked as Exhibit Nos.1 to 38. The trial court, after considering all the evidence, oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to convict the petitioners under Section 120B LP.C. They were further sentenced to undergo R.L for one year each for the offence proved under Section 471 LP.C. and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (five hundred) each. In default of payment of fine they shall have to undergo R.L for one month each. They were further sentenced to undergo R.L for one year for the offence proved under Section 420 LP.C. each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (five hundred only) each. In default of payment of fine they shall have to undergo R.L for one month each. All the sentences were directed run concurrently. 6. Against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal i.e. Cr. Appeal No.5 of 1999. After hearing the parties, the said appeal was dismissed by Sri Pradeep Kumar Chou by, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court NO.-IV-Dhanbad. 7. According to the appellate court the prosecution has established the following facts:- (i) General Manager, S.K. Sinha and Personnel Manager, K.D. Shukla have denied their signature over the appointment letter. (ii) Signature of S.K. Sinha does not tally with his disputed signature as per evidence of P.W. 9. (iii) Signature of appellants over the three alleged appointment letter dated 16.11.81 to 18.11.81 found to be genuine with their admitted signature as per the evidence of P.W. 9. (iv) Transfer letter of the aforesaid persons was of the month of May 1981 though alleged appointment letter was of November 1981. (iii) Signature of appellants over the three alleged appointment letter dated 16.11.81 to 18.11.81 found to be genuine with their admitted signature as per the evidence of P.W. 9. (iv) Transfer letter of the aforesaid persons was of the month of May 1981 though alleged appointment letter was of November 1981. (v) From the evidence it is clearly established that name of the aforesaid persons in B form register were entered after 1982. (vi) Similarly the name of the aforesaid persons in the Bonus register were also found and maintained dishonestly and fraudulently as P.W. 5 being the Bonus clerk has clearly stated that he has not written their name over the pages 91 to 103. (vii) Appellant No. 16 has forwarded and identified all the aforesaid persons. He has introduced all the persons and identified their photos while they made their transfer petition to the P.W. 1 being Personnel Manager of Putki Balhari Project. (viii) P.W. 4 Sudhakar Pandey has stated that application for transfer purported to be signed by him has been forwarded and recommended by his accountant I.R.K. Rao. (ix) Evidences of the witnesses have been fully corroborated by the evidence of expert regarding the forged signature. 8. Counsel of the petitioners has filed one supplementary affidavit showing citation of the following decisions on which he relies in support of his contention. (1) 2009(2) East. Cr.C. 318 (S.C.) (2) 2009(4) S.C.C. Page 200 (3) 2003(2) S.C.C. Page 401 (4) 2009(3) East. Cr. C. Page 536 (Jhar.) (5) 2001 Cr.L.J. 4656 (6) 2005(1) East. Cr.C. 185(S.C.) 9. The learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Baban Lal appearing for the petitioners argued mainly on the point of examination of the petitioners under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him, in the present case, there has been complete violation of the compliance of the provision of the 313 Cr.P.C. as stated in the supplementary affidavit that it has caused prejudice to the petitioners which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, according to the learned counsel, acquittal of Binod Kumar Singh, one of the accused by the court of appeal below and another co-accused Sobhan Ram by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 17.2.2009 in Criminal Rev. No. 5435 of 2006 entitles the petitioners also to be acquitted as both of them were also charged under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. No. 5435 of 2006 entitles the petitioners also to be acquitted as both of them were also charged under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the petitioners are also entitled to the same benefit. According to the learned counsel the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in 2005(1) Eastern Cr. Cases 185(S.C.) has held that if the co-accused was discharged by the court, substance of conspiracy is lost and complicity of the accused is not substantiated by any other evidence. So the petitioners deserve to be acquitted of the charge of Section 120B I.P.C. and consequence thereof no conviction under Sections 468/471 and 420 of I.P.C. can be maintained against the present petitioners. In my view this case law has no application in the facts of the case at hand as the fact of the said reported case is absolutely different from the present case. 10. The main contention of Mr. Baban Lal is that the petitioners are highly prejudiced due to complete violation of the compliance of the provision of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he has fortified his submission by citing the cases mentioned above. 11. The learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Lal has placed reliance on an another decision reported in 2001 Cr.L.J. Page 4656, State of Punjab vs. Naib Din in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "12... If any appellate court or revisional court comes across that the trial court had not put any question to an accused even if it is of a vital nature, such omission alone should not result in setting aside the conviction and sentence as an inevitable consequence. Effort should be made to undo or correct the lapse. If it is not possible to correct it by any means the court should then consider the impact of the lapse on the overall aspect of the case. After keeping that particulars item of evidence aside, if the remaining evidence is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused, the lapse does not matter much and can be sidelined justifiably. But if the lapse is so vital as would affect the entire case, the appellate or revisional court can en-deavour to see whether it could be rectified". 13. How is it possible to rectify or undo the lapse if it pertains to a vital piece of evidence? 14. But if the lapse is so vital as would affect the entire case, the appellate or revisional court can en-deavour to see whether it could be rectified". 13. How is it possible to rectify or undo the lapse if it pertains to a vital piece of evidence? 14. A three Judge Bench of this court has observed in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade VS. State of Maharashtra (1973)2 SCC 793 that such an omission does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings unless prejudice was established by the accused. If the accused succeeds in showing any prejudice it is open to the appellate court to call upon the counsel for the accused to show what explanation the accused has got regarding the circumstances not put to him. 15. In Basavaraj Patil vs. State of Karnataka, (2000)8 SCC 740 a three Judge Bench has followed the aforesaid observation and stated thus: "This above approach shows that some dilution of the rigour of the provision can be made even in the light of a contention raised by the accused that non-questioning him on a vital circumstance by the trial court has caused prejudice to him. The explanation offered by the counsel of the accused at the appellate stage was held to be a sufficient substitute for the answers given by the accused himself". 16 If such objection was not raised at the appellate stage the revisional court should not normally bother about it. 12. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the C.B.1. has pointed out that the courts below have not committed any error in examining the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has submitted that• the petitioners had not raised any contention on this very point either before the trial court or before the appellate court. Even at this stage, the petitioners could not point out any prejudice caused to them because of defective manner of their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. if any. Mr. Rajesh Kumar has further contended that the decision cited by Mr. Lall i.e. (2009)4 S.C.C. 200 , has very clearly explained that only violation of the proper compliance of the provision of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is not enough, the accused has to prove that by the said violation a prejudice has been caused to him. Mr. Rajesh Kumar has further contended that the decision cited by Mr. Lall i.e. (2009)4 S.C.C. 200 , has very clearly explained that only violation of the proper compliance of the provision of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is not enough, the accused has to prove that by the said violation a prejudice has been caused to him. In this decision the Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed: "18...What is the object of examination of an accused under Section 313 of the Code? The section itself declares the object in explicit language that it is "for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him". In Jai Dev vs. State of Punjab, Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was) speaking for a three Judge Bench has focused on the ultimate test in determining whether the provision has been fairly complied with. He observed thus: (AIR p. 620, para 21) "21...The ultimate test in determining whether or not the accused has been fairly examined under Section 342 would be to inquire whether, having regard to all the questions put to him, he did get an opportunity to say what he wanted to say in respect of prosecution case against him. If it appears that the examination of the accused person was defective and thereby a prejudice has been caused to him that would no doubt be a serious infirmity." Thus, from the aforesaid decision it is clear that the question is to be asked in such a manner so that a proper explanation may be given by the accused persons and accused persons may not be prejudiced due to non-offering of proper explanation. In the present case the prosecution has put quite proper and necessary question to the petitioners and thus, there is a complete compliance of Section 313 Cr.P.C. in this case. 13. In this regard Mr. Kumar has also cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court i.e. (2004)7 S.C.C. 502 Naval Kishore Singh vs. State of Bihar. In the said case the Hon'ble Apex Court has held:- "6...At this stage, we are not inclined to accept this contention of the appellant especially when the accused was not able to show that he was in any way prejudiced by such irregular procedure." 14. In the said case the Hon'ble Apex Court has held:- "6...At this stage, we are not inclined to accept this contention of the appellant especially when the accused was not able to show that he was in any way prejudiced by such irregular procedure." 14. I have carefully gone through the examination of each of the 13 petitioners under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I find that sum and substance of the evidence and accusation against them have been put to them very clearly. It is significant to mention here that this point of prejudice said to be caused to the petitioners during their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not argued or pointed out in the trial court or even at the appellate court. If the lapse was so vital, it should have been argued at the trial stage or appellate stage. Furthermore, even at this stage the learned counsel of the petitioners could not point out that the petitioners in any way have been prejudiced by the manner of their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 15. After going through the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and taking over all view of the matter, I am of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned and I confirm the conviction passed upon the petitioners by the courts below. 16. Regarding sentences, I find that the case was registered against the petitioners in the year 1984 i.e. more than 25 years ago. Considering this fact, I feel that it is a fit case were sentences awarded to the petitioners deserve to be reduced to the period already undergone and instead of imprisonment, fine should be imposed upon them. Therefore, I modify all the sentences awarded to the petitioners, to the period already undergone by them (the petitioners) and direct the petitioners to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, within a period of three months from the date of this order in the trial court and in default, they shall undergo imprisonment for the remaining period as awarded by the courts below. With the above modification in the order of sentence, this revision application is dismissed.