JUDGMENT & ORDER : This is a criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.PC challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment, dated 10.09.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji in Criminal Appeal No. 11(1)/2008, upholding the judgment, dated 05.02.2008, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhemaji in GR Case No. 225/2005, convicting the accused-revision petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-with a default clause under Section 420 of the IPC and also rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with a default clause under Section 419 of the IPC. 2. None appears for the accused-revision petitioner on call. 3. I have heard Mr. BJ Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 4. This Court has decided to dispose of this petition on merit after perusal of the impugned judgments as well as the records of the learned trial court including the evidence and taking into account that this is a very old pending case. 5. The fact leading to the prosecution is that the accused-revision petitioner had taken the truck bearing registration No. AS-22-5805 on hire from the informant Sri Lovely Sharma on a monthly rental of Rs. 25,000/-. The informant alleged that even after 4 (four) months, he could not trace out the truck as well as the accused-revision petitioner, and therefore, he doubted that the truck might have been sold by the accused-revision petitioner. 6. On receipt of the FIR, on the above facts, the Dhemaji Police Station registered a case, being Dhemaji Police Station Case No. 88/2005, under Sections 420/419 of the IPC, investigated into it, collected evidence, and finally, submitted charge-sheet against the accused-revision petitioner under the aforesaid provisions of law. 7. It deserves to be mentioned herein that the truck involved was seized during the investigation of the case and the accused-revision petitioner was also arrested. 8. A formal charge was framed against the accused-revision petitioner by the learned trial court under Sections 420/419 of the IPC to which he pleaded not guilty. 9. In this case, the prosecution examined as many as 5 (five) witnesses and the defence examined none. The learned trial court also examined one witness as court witness. 10. In the statement of the accused-revision petitioner recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, he has denied the allegations. 11. 9. In this case, the prosecution examined as many as 5 (five) witnesses and the defence examined none. The learned trial court also examined one witness as court witness. 10. In the statement of the accused-revision petitioner recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, he has denied the allegations. 11. I have perused the records of the learned trial court including the evidence. 12. The informant is examined as PW3. It has come out from his evidence that he is the owner of the truck bearing registration No. AS-22-5805. His further evidence is that the accused-revision petitioner has taken the truck from him on hire at monthly rental of Rs. 25,000/-. But, the accused-revision petitioner has sold the truck subsequently impersonating himself as the owner of the said truck. The said truck was seized by the Investigating Police Officer vide Ext-1. During his cross-examination, the PW3 is found to have admitted that the truck was taken by the accused-revision petitioner from him on monthly rental basis on a verbal agreement. 13. The PW1, Shri Lalchand Kardong is the person to whom the aforesaid truck was sold by the accused-revision petitioner. It appears from the evidence of PW1 that the aforesaid truck was sold to him by the accused-revision petitioner at Rs. 65,000/-. He is also heard saying in his evidence that the accused-revision petitioner introduced himself as Lovely Sharma and he purchased the said truck believing him to be Lovely Sharma, i.e., the owner of the truck. But, only when the Police visited him and seized the truck, he came to know that the accused-revision petitioner was Sri Dipak Khandelia and not Lovely Sharma. 14. The evidence of PW2, Smti Putuli Kardong is that her husband, i.e., PW1 purchased the truck from the owner on being introduced by one Kukumoni. 15. The evidence of PW4, Shri Monoj Buragohain is that the accused-revision petitioner and another had taken the truck from its owner on monthly rental basis and such understanding took place in his presence. 16. The learned trial court examined one witness as Court Witness who has also deposed that in his presence, the accused-revision petitioner had taken the vehicle from its owner, Lovely Sharma, on monthly rental basis. His evidence is similar to that of PW4. 17. 16. The learned trial court examined one witness as Court Witness who has also deposed that in his presence, the accused-revision petitioner had taken the vehicle from its owner, Lovely Sharma, on monthly rental basis. His evidence is similar to that of PW4. 17. PW5, Sri Mosco Saikia, is the Investigating Police Officer who has narrated the various stages of investigation in his evidence including the seizure of the truck from the possession of PW1 to whom the aforesaid truck was sold by the accused-revision petitioner. 18. It appears from the independent and conjoint reading of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, including the court witness, that the accused-revision petitioner had taken the truck from the informant Lovely Sharma on monthly rental basis on an understanding that he would pay him Rs. 25,000/-per month as rent. But, the evidence of PW1 makes it clearly appear that the said truck was sold to him by the accused-revision petitioner introducing himself to be Lovely Sharma, i.e., the owner of the truck although he was not and thereby impersonated the owner of the truck Lovely Sharma. 19. I have thoroughly examined the evidence in cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. There is absolutely no evidence elicited to discredit the evidence of PW1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the Court Witness by the defence. The evidence of PW1, 2, 3 and 4 remains completely unassailed and uncontradicted on the core issues of taking the aforesaid truck by the accused-revision petitioner on monthly rental basis as well as the fact of selling of the said truck to the PW1. 20. That being so, the decision rendered by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court is based on evidence on record and so far the order recording conviction of the accused-revision petitioner is concerned, no interference is called for by this Court. 21. So far the sentence imposed upon the accused-revision petitioner is concerned, this Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that this is a very old pending case and the accused-revision petitioner has fought a long legal battle. 22. The substantive sentence imposed upon the accused-revision petitioner under Section 419 of the IPC is set aside and the fine of Rs. 500/-is enhanced to Rs. 22. The substantive sentence imposed upon the accused-revision petitioner under Section 419 of the IPC is set aside and the fine of Rs. 500/-is enhanced to Rs. 3,000/-and the substantive sentence imposed upon the accused-revision petitioner under Section 420 of the IPC is reduced to simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months from one year and the fine of Rs. 1,000/-is enhanced to Rs. 3,000/-which, according to this Court, will meet the ends of justice. 23. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed. 24. The accused-revision petitioner is to surrender before the learned trial court to serve out the sentence. 25. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.