JUDGMENT & ORDER : This revisional application under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.01.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Criminal Appeal No. 15(4)/2011, whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03.11.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kailashahar, North Tripura in Case No. G.R. 327 of 2010 has been affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Majumder for the accused/convict petitioner and learned Additional P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath for the State respondent. 3. Prosecution case is that the accused petitioner, Bikash Deb, giving an assurance to provide job in a Paper Mill, in the State of Assam, took money from the witnesses, i.e.,Rs.7,500/- from PW1, i.e., the informant, Rs.8,500/- from PW2, Rs.5,000/- from PW3 and Rs.7,000/- from PW4. The payment was made on 20.03.2010 in the house of the informant, PW1, Sri Brajeswar Sen in presence of PWs 5 and 6. The accused demanded Rs.11,000/- per head for providing job and the part payment by those witnesses were made with the assurance that the rest amount will be paid later on. Subsequently, the accused disappeared and neither provided job nor returned the money. Thereafter, PW1, Brajeswar Sen, lodged FIR on 26.08.2010 and it was registered under Section 420 of IPC, i.e., Kumarghat P.S. Case No. 67/2010. Investigation was done and charge sheet was submitted against the accused. In due course learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kailashahar framed charge against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. 4. Prosecution examined seven witnesses and out of them, PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the persons, who were cheated by the accused, who has made the payment of the amount as stated hereinabove. PWs 5 and 6 are the independent witnesses before whom the payment was made. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the accused did not adduce any defence evidence. Defence case is nothing but denial of the prosecution case. The trial Court found the accused guilty of the charge framed against him and sentenced him to suffer S.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for three months. 6. Defence case is nothing but denial of the prosecution case. The trial Court found the accused guilty of the charge framed against him and sentenced him to suffer S.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for three months. 6. Aggrieved, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.15(4)/2011 before the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment dated 05.01.2012 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence. 7. Hence, this revisional application. 8. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically submitted that except oral evidence there is no document to show that the accused had actually taken any such amount as alleged from PWs 1 to 4. In the absence of any documentary evidence, since the allegation is of giving and taking of money with the assurance of giving a job, the prosecution story cannot stand and is liable to be disbelieved. He has further submitted that the place of occurrence, i.e., place of payment of the amount has not been proved and so, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court would give the benefit of doubt to the accused petitioner. He has also submitted that the punishment is excessive and harsh and the offence is not so serious that the accused should not be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 9. Learned Additional P.P., on the other hand, submitted that the evidence of PWs has not been shaken in any manner. The oral evidence is cogent, consistent and credible, which do not deserve any interference by this revisional Court. The punishment is not at all harsh and the accused since cheated the witnesses giving false assurance of providing job, he does not deserve any lenient view and does not deserve the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 10. While exercising the power of revision, this Court is not ordinarily required to reexamine and re-appreciate the evidence on record unless the perversity in respect of appreciation of evidence is apparent on the face of the record. If the concurrent finding of the Courts below is based on appreciation of evidence, this Court shall not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact. The ingredients of cheating as I find, has clearly been brought on record from the deposition of witnesses which has not been shaken in any manner. 11. If the concurrent finding of the Courts below is based on appreciation of evidence, this Court shall not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact. The ingredients of cheating as I find, has clearly been brought on record from the deposition of witnesses which has not been shaken in any manner. 11. As I find all the witnesses stated that the payment was made in the house of the informant, Brajeswar Sen on 20.03.2010, there is no inconsistency or discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses at all. Except some suggestions there is no defence case at all. Nothing also stated in the examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. It is not necessarily that unless some document in respect of payment is proved, the oral evidence of the witnesses is to be thrown overboard. This is a criminal case of cheating. The alleged fact may be proved either by oral evidence or documentary evidence. There is no legal requirement that allegation of cheating shall be proved only by documentary evidence. There is no animosity between the witnesses and the accused. The trial Court and the appellate Court correctly arrived at a finding that there was no reason for disbelieving the statement of the witnesses. 12. The convict petitioner deliberately cheated the witnesses giving false assurance. So, I think the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act or that of Section 360 of Cr.P.C, if given to the accused it will be misplaced. A punishment is required as a matter of warning to the society to prevent this sorts of crimes. However, considering the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Majumder and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, I think the period of imprisonment may be reduced and the fine may be increased and out of the fine money the victims, those who have been cheated by the accused petitioner may be compensated. 13. Therefore, considering all aspects, the sentence is modified. In place of the sentence of imprisonment and fine awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, I direct that the convict petitioner shall suffer R.I. for 6(six) months and shall pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/-, in default of payment shall suffer S.I. for further three months. Fine money if paid by the convict, out of it, Rs. 40,000/-, in default of payment shall suffer S.I. for further three months. Fine money if paid by the convict, out of it, Rs. 7,500/- be given to PW1, i.e., the informant, Brajeswar Sen, Rs.8,500/- to PW2, Anjan Rudra Paul, Rs.5,000/- to PW3, Kajal Nama and Rs.7,000/- to PW4, Dilip Dey as compensation. The period of detention undergone by the convict during investigation and trial shall be set off from the substantial sentence. 14. With the above modification of sentence, the revisional application stands disposed of. 15. Send back the lower Court records along with a copy of this judgment.