JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 5775 of 2019 1. Counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed for deleting the name of petitioner no. 3 from the cause title as petitioner no. 3 has expired during the pendency of this case on 05.04.2012. He further submits that a counter-affidavit has been filed by the State confirming the death of petitioner no. 3. 2. Counsel for the opposite party- State does not oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioners in the instant interlocutory application. 3. Considering the averments made in I.A. No. 5775 of 2019 and the counter-affidavit filed by the State, the present interlocutory application being I.A. No. 5775 of 2019 is allowed. Counsel for the petitioners is directed to delete the name of petitioner no. 3 from the cause-title in red ink during the course of the day. Cr. Rev. No. 809 of 2008 1. Heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Azimuddin, counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State on the merits of the present criminal revision. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that this case was admitted on 25.09.2008 only on the question of sentence. The counsel further submits that the present revision application is directed against the judgment dated 01.07.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Criminal Appeal No. 46/07 whereby the learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal and the sentence was also modified. Ultimately, the petitioners have been awarded punishment of six months’ simple imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that so far as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, he is 82 years of age and this fact is apparent from the judgment passed by the learned trial court wherein the age of the petitioner no. 2 has been recorded as 70 years on the date of judgment i.e. 19.05.2007. So far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, he is son of petitioner no. 2 and his present age is about 47 years. 2 has been recorded as 70 years on the date of judgment i.e. 19.05.2007. So far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, he is son of petitioner no. 2 and his present age is about 47 years. The counsel submits that although the learned lower appellate court has considered the long drawn litigation which was more than 10 years at that point of time while passing the appellate order and also the fact that there was case and counter case arising out of land dispute between the parties and had modified the sentence, but the sentence may further be modified, in as much as, since the year 2008 i.e. after the passing of judgment by the lower appellate court, further 10 years have expired. 4. Counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. 5. The counsel further submits that the petitioners have remained in custody for about 2 ½ months and accordingly, the sentence be modified to the period already undergone by the petitioners and if found proper, some fine may be imposed. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State does not dispute so far as the submission regarding period of litigation as well as the period of custody of the appellants is concerned. The counsel also does not dispute the age of the appellants as mentioned by the counsel for the petitioners. The counsel for the State also does not dispute the submissions made by the petitioners so far as the criminal antecedent of the petitioners is concerned. He submits that from the records of this case, no criminal antecedent of the petitioners has come to light. 7. The counsel further submits that if the court is inclined to modify the sentence and impose fine, then the fine may not be less than Rs. 20,000/-. 8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the order of the appellate court is dated 01.07.2008 and the case remained pending before this Court till date. This Court further finds that the age of the petitioner no. 2 at present is 82 years. Accordingly, for the ends of justice the sentence of the petitioners is hereby modified to the period, which the petitioners have already remained in custody with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each (total Rs. This Court further finds that the age of the petitioner no. 2 at present is 82 years. Accordingly, for the ends of justice the sentence of the petitioners is hereby modified to the period, which the petitioners have already remained in custody with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each (total Rs. 20,000/-) to be paid by the petitioners before the learned court below by way of demand draft in the name of the informant of this case. The amount of fine has to be deposited by 31.12.2019. The fine amount to be deposited by the petitioners, is directed to be remitted to the informant of the case after due identification. 9. If the fine amount is not deposited by 31.12.2019, the bail bond of the petitioners will be cancelled and the petitioners would undergo the punishment which has been imposed by the learned lower appellate court. 10. This Criminal Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. 11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 12. Office is directed to immediately send back the lower court records.