JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - This matter is taken up and heard through Video Conferencing. 2. Instant revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.08.2017, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 2016, Mustkeem Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the Court of learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar (for short"the appeal"). By this judgment and order dated 30.08.2017, the conviction and sentence of the revisionist under Section 386 IPC, as recorded on 26.08.2016 by the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 1366 of 2011 (for short "the Case") has been confirmed. 3. Facts, necessary for disposal of the revision are in a very brief span as hereunder:- The informant received a letter on 01.04.2004, demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- from him with the direction as to where the money was to be dropped. The date of delivery of money was indicated 04.04.2004. On 03.04.2004, the informant received a telephone call. The caller confirmed the delivery of the letter and further threatened him that the informant should deliver the money or else he and his brother would be killed. The informant had a caller identification facility on his telephone. He could know that he received the call from a specific telephone number. Thereafter, a report was lodged on 08.04.2004 and a case was lodged. After investigation, charge sheet under Section 386 IPC was submitted against the revisionist. On 28.11.2005 charge under Section 386 IPC was framed to which the revisionist denied and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined four witnesses namely PW1 Riyasat, the informant, PW2 Jahid, brother of the informant, PW 3 Abdul Sattar, a person from whose telephone number threatening call was made to the informant on 03.04.2004 and PW4 N. R. Sagar, the Investigating Officer. 5. The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") and by the judgment and order dated 26.08.2016, passed in the case the revisionist has been convicted under Section 386 IPC and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine. This judgment and order dated 26.08.2016 was challenged by the revisionist in the appeal, but, the appeal was further dismissed on 30.08.2017. The revisionist preferred the revision from jail. 6. Heard Mr. Sayed Nadim, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. This judgment and order dated 26.08.2016 was challenged by the revisionist in the appeal, but, the appeal was further dismissed on 30.08.2017. The revisionist preferred the revision from jail. 6. Heard Mr. Sayed Nadim, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bharadwaj, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand through Video Conferencing and perused the record. 7. Learned Amicus Curiae would submit that the impugned judgment and orders are bad in the eyes of law for the following reasons:- (i) FIR is delayed. (ii) The investigation has not been proper. (iii) The evidence has been pursued in a casual manner, because the opinion of the hand writing experts has not been taken ; call details were not available before the trial court and even it was not established as to who made the threatening call to the informant on 03.04.2004. (iv) The letter demanding money reveals name of Shaukat Ali, but he was neither questioned by Investigating Officer nor by the Court. 8. On behalf of the State counsel would submit that PW3 Abdul Sattar is the star witness and he has stated about the threat extended by the revisionist from his telephone and the case is proved. In this revision evidence cannot be appreciated. 9. Undoubtedly, in a revision evidence cannot be appreciated in a routine. Revision is always restricted to examine the legality, correctness or propriety of any impugned judgment. Appreciation of evidence may be done under certain circumstances, if it is shown that the material evidence has not been considered or irrelevant material has been considered, or there is some perversity in the appreciation of evidence. 10. In the instant case, what is being argued by learned Amicus Curiae is with regard to factual aspects of the matter that opinion of the hand writing experts has not been taken ; call details were not available before the trial court. Its true that the opinion of any handwriting expert was not obtained to ensure as to who was author of the letter demanding money from the informant. It is also true that the call detail records were not collected by the Investigating Officer, but, mere lapses in the investigation may not be a ground for any intervention. 10. FIR is delayed in the matter but it, in itself is not a factor to disbelieve the prosecution case. It is also true that the call detail records were not collected by the Investigating Officer, but, mere lapses in the investigation may not be a ground for any intervention. 10. FIR is delayed in the matter but it, in itself is not a factor to disbelieve the prosecution case. PW1 the informant has stated about the letter and the telephone call, which he received and the telephone number from which the phone extending threat was made. It was telephone number of Abdur Sattar, who is PW3. PW3 Abdur Sattar has categorically stated that it is the revisionist who made threatening call from his telephone. Learned Court below has in detail discussed the evidence of this witness and found him reliable. There is no reason to make any departure in this revision. It cannot be stated that any perversity has been committed. It is the question of appreciation of the evidence to arrive at the conclusion. The Learned Courts below after appreciation of evidence arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is not a case that any material evidence has been ignored or irrelevant material has been considered or there is any perversity in the conclusions derived. 11. The learned courts below have discussed all the aspects in detail. Prosecution in fact has proved that it is the revisionist, who extended threat to life to the informant and tried to induce him to deliver Rs.1,00,000/-. The question which falls for consideration is as to, what offence was committed by the revisionist. The revisionist has been convicted under Section 386 IPC. Section 386 IPC is as hereunder:- "386. Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt. Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 12. Extortion is defined under Section 383 IPC, which is as hereunder. "383. Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 12. Extortion is defined under Section 383 IPC, which is as hereunder. "383. Extortion.- Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion"." 13. A bare perusal of above circumstances makes it abundantly clear that delivery of property is necessary for commission of an offence of extortion. In the instant case, property was not delivered. 14. Section 385 IPC defines attempts to extort, which is as hereunder;- "385. Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion.- Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." 15. In the instant case what the prosecution has been able to prove is that it is the revisionist, who attempted to put the informant in fear of death, so as to induce him to deliver Rs. 1,00,000/-. The act of revisionist falls under Section 385 IPC. His conviction Under Section 385 IPC is bad in the eye of law, which needs to be modified. 16. The revisionist is convicted under Section 385 IPC instead of 386 IPC. The revisionist is sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 385 IPC. In default of payment of fine the revisionist shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. 17. The impugned judgment and orders stand modified accordingly. 18. Applicant is in jail. Let a copy of this judgment be immediately sent through e-mail also to the concerned court as well as to the concerned jail for compliance. 19. The revision stands disposed of accordingly