JUDGMENT Deepak Roshan, J. - The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 23.07.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2008 whereby the appellate court has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the accused appellants reducing the sentence S.I. for 2 years passed against them by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Petition Case No.410 of 1993, T.R. No.143 of 2008 for the offence under Section 500/34 I.P.C into a fine of Rs.10,000/- against the opposite party no.2 while the another accused/opposite party no.3 namely, Vidya Devi has been acquitted from the charge. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned appellate court has erred in converting the sentence from simple imprisonment of 2 years into fine of Rs.10,000/- on the ground that the said accused person is very old. He has further submitted that no reason has been assigned for acquittal of accused/o.p. no.3. He further submitted that after affirming the conviction, the learned appellate court has erred in converting the imprisonment into fine. 3. Mr. Rajendra Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that there is no error in the order of learned appellate court because the opposite party is very old and since the conviction has been affirmed the purpose of defamation against him has been served. 4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of complaint petition filed by complainant, namely, Amitabha De, alleging therein that he is practicing advocate of Dhanbad Civil Court. His father Sri Subodh Chandra Dey is very respectable person coming from aristocrat family of Chirkunda. The case relating to land, the detail of which has been described in the complaint petition, was being contested between his father and the appellants and was pending in the court of the Munsif-IInd, Dhanbad in Title Suit No.98 of 1981. In fact, series of cases have been filed and the parties were at logger-head over land dispute. The aforesaid cases were disposed of in favour of the complainant and his family members. On 07.07.1993, the appellants got one notice published in the daily "Prabhat Khabar" having wide circulation at different places in the district of Dhanbad, making defamatory imputations against the character of the father of complainant in connection with the disputed land knowing fully well that it will injure and lower the reputation of the complainant''s father publicly. 5. On 07.07.1993, the appellants got one notice published in the daily "Prabhat Khabar" having wide circulation at different places in the district of Dhanbad, making defamatory imputations against the character of the father of complainant in connection with the disputed land knowing fully well that it will injure and lower the reputation of the complainant''s father publicly. 5. From perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the complainant-petitioner has been able to show that Rajendra Prasad -opposite party no.2 have got the notice published in the local edition of Prabhat Khabar. The notice is in his name and opposite party no.3-Vidya Devi and from the contents of the notice, it also appears that libel was published not only against the father of the complainant, but against his entire family members as such the petitioner, who is son of Subodh Chandra Dey was also injured by the publication. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances the learned appellate court was of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the opposite party no.2 namely, Rajendra Prasad Sao for offence under Section 500 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned appellate court has further held that the prosecution has failed to prove charge against the opposite party no.3 and accordingly, the learned appellate court has acquitted opposite party no.3 and uphold the conviction of the opposite party no.2, however order of sentence has been converted into fine of Rs.10,000/-. 7. I have critically gone through the evidence available on record on query from this Court, it has been stated by the petitioner that the opposite party no.2 is aged about 75 years at present. In my considered opinion, when the conviction has been affirmed by both the court below with respect to opposite party no.2, the purpose of the petitioner has been served. I am also also in agreement with the view of the learned appellate who has converted the sentence of 2 year S.I into a fine of Rs.10,000/-. 8. In my considered opinion, when the conviction has been affirmed by both the court below with respect to opposite party no.2, the purpose of the petitioner has been served. I am also also in agreement with the view of the learned appellate who has converted the sentence of 2 year S.I into a fine of Rs.10,000/-. 8. As the opposite party is very old aged about 75 years, in the interest of justice keeping in mind the age of the opposite party no.2, I do not want to interfere with the impugned orders, as no purpose would be sufficed by directing opposite party no.2 to undergo imprisonment and so far opposite party no.3 is concerned prosecution has failed to prove the charge against her beyond all shadows of reasonable doubts. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this application is disposed of.