JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. Since both the revision petitions arise out of the common judgments and orders passed by the Court below, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. 3. These revision petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. have been filed against the judgment and order dated 04.02.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Behrod, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeals No. 17/2010(Ram Niwas v. State of Rajasthan) and 21/2010(Vijay Singh v. State of Rajasthan) , whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeals filed by the accused-petitioners and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.03.2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Behrod, District Alwar(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') against the accused-petitioners in Criminal Case No. 308/2009, State of Rajasthan v. Vijay Singh & Another , whereby, the learned Trial Court, while acquitting the accused-petitioners under Section 406 IPC, convicted and sentenced each of the accused-petitioners as under: (i) Under Section 420 IPC to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one years rigorous imprisonment; (ii) Under Section 120B IPC to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. The concise facts of the case are that the complainants filed a complaint against the accused-persons under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, which was sent for investigation by the concerned Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 07.02.2009. It was stated in the complaint that the accused-petitioners formed an illegal gang and came to the complainants village and assured them to provide them jobs in the Army. They told the complainants that they will provide employment to the complainants in the Army and for that purpose, the consideration may be fixed by them. The complainants believed the accused-persons. Manoj and Yudhishtar both gave Rs. 1,30,000/- each; Shubhdarshan, Krishan, Harikesh and Dharmendra each gave Rs. 1,50,000/-. Total Rs. They told the complainants that they will provide employment to the complainants in the Army and for that purpose, the consideration may be fixed by them. The complainants believed the accused-persons. Manoj and Yudhishtar both gave Rs. 1,30,000/- each; Shubhdarshan, Krishan, Harikesh and Dharmendra each gave Rs. 1,50,000/-. Total Rs. 7,60,000/- were given by the complainants to the accused-persons for getting employment in the Army, but, neither they were employed in the Army nor the aforesaid amount was returned to them by the accused-persons. On the basis of the complaint, FIR No. 79/2009(Exhibit P-14) was registered and investigation commenced. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Trial Court. Investigation was kept pending against accused R.K. Rajan under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Trial Court framed charges against the accused-petitioners under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC. Accused-petitioners denied the allegation of commission of aforesaid offences against them, pleaded innocence and claimed trial. 5. Prosecution supported its case with the aid of 24 witnesses and exhibited the documents. In defence no evidence was produced by the accused-petitioners, but 21 documents were exhibited. Statements of accused-petitioners were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they refused the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence stating that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 6. After scrutiny of the material on record and evidence produced by the prosecution as well as statements of accused-petitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C., learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 27.03.2010 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners as stated hereinabove. Against the said judgment and order, accused-petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 04.02.2011 dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioners and maintained the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. 7. Being aggrieved with the judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below, the accused-petitioners have preferred this revision petition before this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners firstly argued the case on merits and contended that both the Courts below erred in relying upon and appreciating the prosecution evidence for convicting the accused-petitioners as the material available on record does not prove the offences alleged against the accused-petitioners beyond reasonable doubt. It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The witnesses produced by the prosecution are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be relied upon. It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The witnesses produced by the prosecution are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be relied upon. There is no material on record for previous conviction of the accused-petitioners and the accused-petitioners were entitled for probation, but the learned courts below have ignored this aspect of the matter also. The accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in the instant case, while they have no role in the commission of alleged offences. It is further contended that learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court both have committed grave error in convicting the accused-petitioners for alleged offences. Impugned judgments and orders passed by the Courts below are based on conjectures, faulty presumption and misreading of evidence. 9. Finally learned counsel for the accused-petitioners contended that the incident is of 2009 and the present case is pending since 2011 and, therefore, the accused-petitioners do not want to press this revision petition on merits. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners further contended that looking to the fact and circumstances of the case; further that the incidence in the present case pertains to year 2009, i.e. 4 years ago, lenient view may be taken in the present matter by this Court. It is, therefore, prayed by learned counsel for the accused-petitioners that the accused-petitioners may either be granted benefit of probation or in the alternative, the punishment/sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them by the courts below, being too harsh, may be considered sympathetically and may favourably be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused petitioners. 10. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners further submitted that the accused-petitioners are behind the bars since 07.04.2009 till today and they are serving their sentence. Thus, the accused-petitioners have remained in custody and served sentence of imprisonment for 4 years and including remission etc. for more than 4 years. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners relied upon the judgments rendered in the cases of State of Maharashtra v. Chandra Prakas & Ors., 1991 Cr.L.J. 3187 ; Madan Lal v. State AIR 1968 SC 1267 ; Mohd. for more than 4 years. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners relied upon the judgments rendered in the cases of State of Maharashtra v. Chandra Prakas & Ors., 1991 Cr.L.J. 3187 ; Madan Lal v. State AIR 1968 SC 1267 ; Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1997 Cr.L.R.(SC) 285 ; Kundan Lal v. State 1978 Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 670 , wherein accused-persons were facing trial for so many years and with a view to serve the ends of justice, the sentence imposed upon the accused-persons was modified to the fine and the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-petitioners and submitted that accused-petitioners have cheated the unemployed complainants. For sentence, learned Public Prosecutor left the matter to the discretion of the Court. 12. From the scrutiny of prosecution evidence and the findings recorded by both the Courts below, I am satisfied that learned counsel for the accused-petitioners are right in not pressing these revision petitions on merits. So far as reduction of sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioners is concerned, there is no doubt that the incident in the present case took place in the year 2009, i.e. more than 4 years ago. During pendency of this revision petition and at the time of investigation and trial, the accused-petitioners have remained behind the bars and they are behind the bars since 07.04.2009 till now. The punitive theory of punishment and deterrent theory of punishment have to left their force considering the fact that the incident in the present matter took place in the year 2009. Jurists have formulated some principles regarding punishments and these recent trends have been recognised and approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court also for ordinary crimes, although some special crimes have been excluded. 13. So far as reduction of sentence of imprisonment is concerned, it is not in dispute that in the present case the incident occurred as back as in the year 2009, i.e. more than 4 years ago. The accused-petitioners had been facing trial for quite long time; they have remained in jail for more than four years also. 13. So far as reduction of sentence of imprisonment is concerned, it is not in dispute that in the present case the incident occurred as back as in the year 2009, i.e. more than 4 years ago. The accused-petitioners had been facing trial for quite long time; they have remained in jail for more than four years also. The purpose of the Court is not merely to punish the accused-persons, but also to ensure that harmony be maintained with the society, therefore, it will not be proper for the accused-persons to remain in custody for a long period. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice, I want to give one more chance to reform the accused-petitioners. Thus, considering the fact that further incarceration of the accused-petitioners would not achieve any beneficial purpose, it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioners by the Trial Court and maintained by the Appellate Court to a period of imprisonment already undergone by them. 14. In the result, I maintain the judgments and orders of conviction passed by the Courts below against the accused-petitioners but, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the fact that the accused-petitioners have already undergone imprisonment of near about four years, as aforesaid mentioned, the ends of justice would be met in sentencing the accused-petitioners to a period of imprisonment already undergone by them. 15. Consequently, the revision petitions filed by the accused-petitioners are partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-petitioners namely (1) Vijay Singh S/o. Shri Tara Chand and (2) Ram Niwas S/o. Shri Chand is maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioners is modified/reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. The fine as imposed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court is maintained, but in default of payment of fine, each of the accused-petitioners shall further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for default under Section 420 IPC and one month's rigorous imprisonment for default under Section 120B IPC. The accused-petitioners are in jail. Upon compliance of aforesaid directions, the Trial Court is directed to release the accused-petitioners forthwith in this case, in case they are not required in any other case. The accused-petitioners are in jail. Upon compliance of aforesaid directions, the Trial Court is directed to release the accused-petitioners forthwith in this case, in case they are not required in any other case. Registry is directed to send the record of both the Courts below along with copy of this judgment for compliance forthwith. Applications for suspension of sentence(I.A. No. 77/2011 and 51/2011) also stand disposed of. 16. Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record in connected revision petition.Revision partly allowed. *******