JUDGMENT Heard Mr. J.M. Gandhi, learned Advocate for the applicants and Mr. S.S. Doiphode, learned Addl. P.P. for the respondent-State. 2. This Revision impugns the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 51/2009 of Nagpur District. The said Appeal was filed against the judgment and order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 237/2008 on 7th March, 2009. Both the applicants were convicted for the offences punishable under section 489-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 489-C read with sec. 34 of the IPC. They have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, on each of the count. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. It was contended before the Appellate Court that since all the Panch witnesses were hostile the evidence of the Investigating Officer should have been examined with great caution and care. The learned Appellate Court, however, after hearing the appellants and the State, dismissed the Appeal. The learned counsel Mr. J.M. Gandhi appearing on behalf of both the applicants has submitted that in fact the learned trial Court and the Appellate Court have committed gross error in appreciating the evidence. During the course of further hearing, the learned counsel Mr. Gandhi has submitted that the applicants are in custody since 28.1.2008 and they have completed more than five years. He, therefore, prayed that the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 4. Considering the sentence of imprisonment imposed on them and also considering the fact that they have completed five years and further considering the remission which might be available to them, I am of the view that a case is made out for reduction of substantive sentence. The learned Addl. P.P. Mr. Doiphode has submitted that this Court after taking into consideration the nature of evidence and the period already undergone by the applicants, may pass suitable order. 5. After hearing both sides. I pass the following order:- The Revision Application is partly allowed. The judgment passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 51/2009 is modified. The conviction of the applicants for the offence punishable under section 489-B r/ws. 34 of IPC and Sec. 489-C r/ws. 34 IPC is maintained. 5. After hearing both sides. I pass the following order:- The Revision Application is partly allowed. The judgment passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 51/2009 is modified. The conviction of the applicants for the offence punishable under section 489-B r/ws. 34 of IPC and Sec. 489-C r/ws. 34 IPC is maintained. As far as the substantive sentence is concerned, the same is reduced to the period already undergone by the applicants. It is stated that fine amount has been paid by both the applicants. The applicants be released from the prison if they are not required in any other case and if the tine amount is paid. Application stands disposed off. Ordered accordingly.