JUDGMENT Mr. Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.: - Present criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment, dated 9.10.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners, assailing their conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 205 and 419, IPC, was dismissed. 2. The above said criminal revision petition came up for preliminary hearing before this Court on 15.11.2012. At that time, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that he did not want to argue the case on merits. However, he submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioners was on higher side, therefore, notice of motion was issued with regard to the quantum of sentence only. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has decided not to argue the case on merits, but to satisfy the conscience of this Court, I deem it appropriate to reappraise the material available on record. 4. The brief facts of the case are that Shri K.S. Dhaliwal, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, reported the matter to the police alleging that a case, titled as ‘State v. Pritam Ram and others’, arising out of FIR No. 127, dated 17.3.2000, for the offences punishable under Sections 427 and 506, IPC, was pending in his Court for 14.1.2003. When the case was called, then Tarsem Lal along with Balihar Singh appeared before the Court and Tarsem Lal claimed himself to be Chaman Lal. The third accused, Pritam Ram, was not present and, therefore, an application for exemption from his personal appearance was filed. When the said Court was in the process of marking the presence of the accused, then the complainant, Labh Singh, who claimed himself to be the Sarpanch of Village Dappar, filed an affidavit before the Court that the person Tarsem Lal was wrongly claiming himself to be Chaman Lal while, in fact, Chaman Lal was not present in the Court. 5. Tarsem Lal was directed to give his three specimen signatures, which were compared by the Court with the signatures of Chaman Lal, which were available on the judicial file, but the same did not tally with each other. 5. Tarsem Lal was directed to give his three specimen signatures, which were compared by the Court with the signatures of Chaman Lal, which were available on the judicial file, but the same did not tally with each other. After recording the statements of few persons available in the Court room, the learned Magistrate concluded that Tarsem Lal in conspiracy with Chaman Lal, committed the offence of impersonation. Resultantly, FIR No. 24, dated 16.1.2003, under Sections 205 and 419, IPC, was registered at Police Station, City, Rajpura. 6. The petitioners, Chaman Lal and Tarsem Lal, were arrested and after completion of the investigation, the chargesheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented. The charges under Sections 205 and 419 read with Section 34, IPC, were framed to which, the petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Labh Singh as PW-1; HC Kamaljit Singh as PW-2; SI Sukhdev Singh as PW-3; Prem Singh as PW-4; HC Mohinder Singh as PW-5; and Major Singh, Criminal Ahlmad of the Court, as PW-6. Since the prosecution had failed to conclude its evidence, therefore, the same was closed by Court order, dated 22.7.2011. 8. The statements of the petitioners in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C., were recorded. They denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded false implication. No evidence in defence was led. 9. Labh Singh, PW-1, specifically deposed that when the case was called by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, then Tarsem Lal appeared in the Court posing himself to be Chaman Lal. He also deposed about the proceedings which had taken place before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. Similar statement was suffered by HC Mohinder Singh, PW-5, with regard to the appearance of Tarsem Lal, in place of his brother Chaman Lal. The remaining witnesses have also stated about the role played by them during investigation. Eventually, the learned Trial Court held both the petitioners guilty and awarded the following sentences: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name Offence punishable under Sentence Fine In Default (R.I.) (in Rs.) (S.I.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chaman Lal Section 205 read with 1 year 200/- 1 month Section 34, IPC. Section 419 read with 1 year 200/- 1 month Section 34, IPC. Tarsem Lal Section 205, IPC. 1 year 200/- 1 month Section 419, IPC. 1 year 200/- 1 month ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10. Section 419 read with 1 year 200/- 1 month Section 34, IPC. Tarsem Lal Section 205, IPC. 1 year 200/- 1 month Section 419, IPC. 1 year 200/- 1 month ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioners had paid the fine before the learned Trial Court. 11. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, and the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 9.10.2012. 12. It is, thus, evident that on the basis of the material available on record, the petitioners have rightly been convicted by the learned Courts below. 13. Regarding quantum of sentence, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they (petitioners) had faced the agony of trial, appeal etc. for approximately 10 years; they were on bail during the trial and the appeal, but the said concession was not misused; they were neither required nor involved in any other case; Chaman Lal has already been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class of the earlier case in which his brother, Tarsem Lal, allegedly appeared on his behalf; the petitioners are the sole bread winners for their families; and that they had suffered incarceration for more than four months. 14. In view of the above backdrop, Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha prayed for reduction in the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishan Singla, 2004 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 15 (SC), wherein their Lordships of Hon’ble the Supreme Court had reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to three months in a case attracting the mischief of Section 420, IPC. He had also made reference to a judgment of this Court in the case of Yadwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, [2009(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1159] : 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 245 (P&H), where the accused had faced the trial for 10 years and had also lost his job, therefore, his sentence of imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471, IPC, was reduced to the period already undergone, i.e. three months. 15. 15. Learned counsel for the State had produced the affidavits, dated 5.1.2013, of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, showing the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioners, which were taken on record on 15.2.2013. Learned counsel for the State though opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners for reduction of their sentence, but he fairly conceded that the petitioners were neither required nor involved in any other case at the time of recording of the conviction in the present case. He further conceded that for the last several months, the petitioners are behind the bars, but they have not committed any jail offence. 16. Heard. 17. A perusal of the above affidavits reveals that petitioner No. 1, Chaman Lal, had suffered incarceration for 3 months and 4 days, while petitioner No. 2, Tarsem Lal, had undergone imprisonment of 2 months and 25 days as on 5.1.2003. The petitioners have faced the agony of the trial and the appeal for approximately 10 years. During the trial and pendency of the appeal, they were admitted to bail, but the said concession was never misused by them. The petitioners are neither required nor involved in any other case. Even during their incarceration in the jail, they are maintaining good behaviour. 18. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case; the manner in which the offences were committed; and the ratio of the judgments, ibid, some concession in the substantive sentence deserves to be extended to the petitioners. Therefore, their substantive sentence is ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the amount of fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall remain unchanged. 19. With the above modification in the quantum of substantive sentence, the present criminal revision petition is partly allowed. ---------0.B.S.0------------