JUDGMENT : HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. 1. This order shall dispose of the above noted two petitions as they arise out of the common judgments and order passed by the Courts below. 2. The petitioners were tried for committing the offences punishable under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 5.12.2008, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muktsar, while acquitting the petitioners of the offence under Section 406 IPC, held them guilty under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for 3 years under Section 420 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and, in default of payment of the fine, to further undergo imprisonment for 3 months and RI for one year under Section 120-B IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Aggrieved there-against, the petitioners preferred appeals before the learned Sessions Judge, Muktsar. However, vide judgment dated 17.8.2009, the appeals filed by the petitioners had been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar. Still aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition. 4. As per the prosecution case, on 18.9.1999 a complaint was moved to the police by complainant-Gurpreet Singh, leveling allegations against the petitioners that they took from the complainant an amount of Rs.55,000/- on 26.4.1999 for sending his son to Malaysia. The accused kept the complainant at Delhi from 28.4.1999 to 12.5.1999. Thereafter, they while leaving the complainant at Delhi, went away by a train during night on 12.5.1999. Later on, the complainant had visited the houses of the accused many times by incurring travel expenses of Rs.6000/-, but despite their assurance, the accused did not return the money to the complainant. It was further alleged that besides the complainant, the accused had also defrauded other persons. The aforesaid complaint was enquired into by the police, wherein it surfaced that the accused had taken money from Gurpreet Singh and Gurmit Singh for sending them abroad. Thereafter, on the legal opinion of the District Attorney, FIR had been lodged in this case. Both the accused were, accordingly, arrested. 5. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court. Having found a prima-facie case, charges under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC, were framed against the accused. 6. The prosecution had, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as six witnesses. 7. Both the accused were, accordingly, arrested. 5. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court. Having found a prima-facie case, charges under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC, were framed against the accused. 6. The prosecution had, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as six witnesses. 7. Statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they stated that they had falsely been implicated and claimed trial. 8. The learned trial Court had, as noticed above, convicted and sentenced the petitioners-accused under Sections 420 read with 120-B IPC. The appeals filed by them were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar vide judgments dated 17.8.2009. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have contended that as a matter of fact, petitioner-Pritpal Singh was to take back Rs.40,000/- from the complainant and in that regard, legal notice Exhibit D.1 was also issued by said Pritpal Singh to the complainant. On the strength of that it is argued that, in fact, no money was taken by the petitioners from the complainant and the initiation of the criminal proceedings by the complainant was with a view to dissuade the petitioners from availing any legal remedy against the complainant. It is further argued that the complainant did not mention any date as to when the money had been taken and that the suit filed by the complainant for recovery against petitioner-Jagjit Singh, had been dismissed by the Civil Court, as no evidence was led by the complainant. On this premise, it was prayed that the judgments and order passed by the Courts below may be set aside and the petitioners may be acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Alternatively, learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the petitioners does not require any interference, then by taking into consideration that the petitioners have already undergone a considerable period of their substantive sentence, the same may be reduced to the one already undergone by them. Reliance has been placed on Yadwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 3 RCR(Cri) 245 and Raunak Chand Vs. State of Punjab, 2010 24 RCR(Cri) 838. 10. Reliance has been placed on Yadwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 3 RCR(Cri) 245 and Raunak Chand Vs. State of Punjab, 2010 24 RCR(Cri) 838. 10. On the other hand, learned State counsel has, while opposing the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners, has argued that the findings recorded by the Courts below are based on cogent and convincing evidence. The accused-petitioners could not establish by way of evidence before the Courts below that they did not take any money from the complainant for sending his son abroad. Once that fact stood established, no scope remains for interference by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records with their able assistance. 12. On the basis of the oral as also the documentary evidence, the learned trial Court found that the guilt on the part of the accused stood proved from the testimony of the witnesses, who had unequivocally deposed that the money had been handed over to accused Pritpal Singh in their presence and the same was paid through accused Jagjit Singh. It was further found that while filing the written statement to the Civil Suit filed by the complainant for recovery of the money, it was admitted by accused-Jagjit Singh that the money had, in fact been given by the complainant to Pritpal Singh accused. The legal notice allegedly sent by accused-Pritpal Singh and proved on record by way of Ex.D1, was found to be of no help to the accused, in view of the fact that they had failed to impeach the creditworthy evidence produced by the prosecution. Such findings were upheld by the learned Appellate Court, when appeals filed by the petitioners, had been dismissed. 13. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. Hence, the conviction of the petitioners under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC is maintained. 14. However, while coming to the quantum of sentence, as per the custody certificates produced on record, accused-petitioner Pritpal Singh has already undergone 1 year 1 month and 11 days, whereas accused-petitioner Jajit Singh has already undergone 11 months and 5 days, out of their total substantive sentence of 3 years. The FIR in this case was registered on 30.03.2001. 14. However, while coming to the quantum of sentence, as per the custody certificates produced on record, accused-petitioner Pritpal Singh has already undergone 1 year 1 month and 11 days, whereas accused-petitioner Jajit Singh has already undergone 11 months and 5 days, out of their total substantive sentence of 3 years. The FIR in this case was registered on 30.03.2001. The petitioners have been facing the agony of trial for the last 18 years. Thus, in my opinion, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners once again behind the bars to undergo the remaining sentence. Ends of justice would be suitably met if the substantive sentence imposed upon the accused-petitioners is reduced to the one already undergone by them. 15. In view of the above, while maintaining the conviction of the accused-petitioners under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC, their substantive sentence is reduced to the one already undergone by them. However, the amount of fine shall remain intact. 16. Disposed of in the above terms.