Judgment : 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging the Judgment dated 1.3.2010 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge at Mysore in Crl.A.No.192/2007 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners against the Judgment dated 1.6.2007 passed by the JMFC (II Court) at Mysore in C.C.No.1403/2005, in which the learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5(e) of Money Lenders Act and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-each for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5(e) of Money Lenders Act. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was running a chit business in the house bearing No.141/1, 2nd Main, Kumbarakoppalu, Mysore within the limits of Metagalli Police Station, Mysore District and he has taken a sum of Rs.18,500/-from CW.1; a sum of Rs.13,500/- from CW.2; a sum of Rs.19,600/-from CW.3; a sum of Rs.25,700/- from CW.4; a sum of Rs.40,500/- from CW.5; a sum Rs.27,000/- from CW.6 and a sum of Rs.30,000/- from CW.7 towards the contribution of the chit fund, which has been not refunded to the said CWs.1 to 7 and therefore the petitioners have committed an offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all PWs.1 to 15 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P5. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and has got examined accused No.1-Shylaja as DW.1 and produced documents at Exs.D1 to D3. The learned Magistrate after appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the accused as aforesaid and sentenced them accordingly. The accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Mysore and the Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.192/2007 partly allowed the appeal by dismissing the appeal against conviction for an offence under Section 420 of IPC, but acquitting the accused for the offence under Sections 3, 4 and 5(e) of Money Lenders Act. It is this Judgment, which has been challenged in this Revision Petition. 4. Heard Sri Vijayakumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajasubramanya Bhat, learned HCGP for the Respondent/State. 5. It is this Judgment, which has been challenged in this Revision Petition. 4. Heard Sri Vijayakumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajasubramanya Bhat, learned HCGP for the Respondent/State. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he will not press the Revision Petition so far as the conviction is concerned, but prays for leniency so far as the sentence is concerned. 6. I have gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. On going through the evidence of PWs.1 to 15 and also the documents, it is clear that the petitioners have not refunded the amount of chit funds. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses indicates the accused has taken a sum of Rs.12,000/- each from PWs.1 and 2-Chinnaswamy and Laxmamma; Rs.26,000/-from PW.3-Gowramma; Rs.30,000/- from PW.4-Sunanda; Rs.27,000/- from PW.5-Mary and Rs.27,000/- from PW.6- Ningamma. PW.7-Sridevi though has stated that she has paid a sum of Rs.27,500/- to the accused, she has not stated the outstanding amount in her evidence. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that PW.7-Sridevi is no more. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that PW.4-Sunanda has executed a decree against the petitioners for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and therefore nothing is due to her in so far as the chit transaction is concerned. 7. On a perusal of the evidence of PW.7 and also the evidence of other witnesses, it is clear that the petitioners have not refunded the amount of chit payable to the witnesses and therefore the order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate is in accordance with the evidence on record and is neither perverse nor against the principles of law. Hence, the order of conviction for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC is hereby confirmed. So far as the sentence is concerned, this Court directed the learned Counsel for the petitioners to keep the petitioners present before the Court and accordingly today Sri Dharmalingam-petitioner No.2 is present before the Court. He submits that he is aged about 48 years and that he has got two unmarried children and that he is doing masonry work and he is hard pressed in life. If he is sent to jail at this stage, the entire family will suffer. He submits that he is aged about 48 years and that he has got two unmarried children and that he is doing masonry work and he is hard pressed in life. If he is sent to jail at this stage, the entire family will suffer. On the other hand, he will make an endeavour to repay the amount due to the witnesses. 8. Sri Rajasubramanya Bhat, learned HCGP submits that the sentence imposed on the petitioners may be confirmed. 9. Having regard to the fact that the trial Court has not directed the payment of any compensation to the victims and having regard to the status of the petitioners, in my view, sending them to custody at this late stage of their life will not serve any purpose. On the other hand, imposition of fine with a direction to pay the same as compensation to the victims would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the following order is passed:-The appeal is allowed in part. The order of conviction passed against the petitioners for an offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside; in its place; the petitioners are directed to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Out of the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/-recovered as fine, PWs.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are directed to be paid a sum of Rs.12,000/-; Rs.12,000/-; Rs.25,000/-; Rs.25,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The balance amount shall be forfeited as fine to the State. The petitioners are given eight week's time from today to deposit the fine amount, failing which, the trial Court is directed to execute the default sentence. The trial Court is directed to disburse the compensation to the victims as mentioned above immediately after its recovery.