JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Rohit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI. 3. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the Judgment dated 24.05.2014 passed by Sri. R.K. Choudhary, Addl. Judicial Commissioner-XVI, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 188/2013, affirming the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court vide Judgment dated 30.07.2013 passed by Sri. Yashwant Prakash, SDJM-cum-Special J.M. (C.B.I.) Ranchi in R.C. Case No. 18(A)/2006(R) (Tr. No. 948/2013) whereby and whereunder the petitioner was convicted under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 01 Year under Section 419 of IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 02 Years 06 months under Section 420 of IPC and was further sentenced to deposit fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 420 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 02 months. It was further ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone by the petitioner shall be set off at the time calculation of sentence. Arguments of the petitioner: 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgments call for interference as they suffer from perversity. Learned counsel further submitted that it was one Dasaiya who had given his declaration that the petitioner was his adopted son and subsequently, a letter of appointment was issued in favour of the petitioner and in such circumstances, there was no role of the petitioner, so far as cheating is concerned. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has stated and led evidence before the learned trial court to the effect that the petitioner was the adopted son of said Dasaiya, but there was no documentary evidence to that effect, consequently, the plea of the petitioner was disbelieved by both the learned courts below. He also submitted that none of the officials of the Central Coalfields Limited were made accused in the present case. He also submitted that none of the officials of the Central Coalfields Limited were made accused in the present case. Learned counsel also referred to the conviction of the petitioner under Section 419 of IPC and submitted that although it has been recorded that the petitioner had no access to the records of Central Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as CCL) and if the interpolation was done, the same could not have been done without connivance of the CCL employees, but in spite of that only the petitioner has been convicted. 5. The learned counsel referred to Paras 11, 12, 13, 14 and 17 of the judgment reported in Ratan Lal @ Babulal Chunilal vs. Sundarbai Govardhandas Samsuka, (2018) 11 SCC 119 and submitted that there could also have been customary method of adoption and this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned courts below. He also referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2017 SC 5327 which has been followed in the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court reported in 2020 (1) East Cr. Cases 35 (Jhr) to submit that the basic elements to constitute an offence of cheating against the petitioner are wholly lacking under the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. On the point of sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 1 SCC 142 and submitted that the petitioner has served CCL for 27 years right from the year 1979 to 2006 and has already lost the job. He also submitted that the petitioner has already remained in custody for a total period of 5 months 11 days and has faced the rigours of the trial since the year 2006 and at present, he is about 61 years of age and he has no criminal antecedent. He submitted that some lenient view may be taken on the point of sentence and it may be limited to the period already undergone. He further submitted that considering the punishment awarded under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC, he on instruction of his client is also making a submission that the sentence may be modified and some enhanced amount of fine may be imposed in lieu of any further imprisonment of the petitioner, if the conviction is affirmed. Arguments of the opposite party-CBI: 7. Arguments of the opposite party-CBI: 7. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI opposed the prayer and submitted that the matter relates to impersonation and cheating and under such circumstances, there is no scope for any modification of the sentence awarded to the petitioner. He also submitted that there are concurrent findings of both the learned courts below and considering the limited scope under revisional jurisdiction, there is no perversity in the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below and accordingly no interference is called for. Findings of this court: 8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court finds that on 06-11-2006, a Formal F.I.R. was registered under Sections 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) and Sections 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as P.C. Act of 1947) corresponding to Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as P.C. Act of 1988) against the petitioner and unknown officers of C.C.L. on the basis of source information alleging inter-alia that the petitioner, working as Mines time Keeper, Saunda “D’ Colliery, CCL, Barka Sayal Area, Hazaribagh entered into a criminal conspiracy with the unknown officers of CCL and in pursuance thereof got himself appointed as Piece Rated Worker in the said colliery on 01-01-1979 by impersonating himself as son of Dasaiya, Clipman of Saunda ‘D’ Colliery who had sought voluntary retirement from service in 1978 under a Male Voluntary Scheme. It was further case of the prosecution that as per the scheme, one of the dependent members of the retiring employee was to get employment in CCL in lieu of the retirement of the existing employee and at the time of seeking retirement, Sri. Dasaiya declared the petitioner as his son and both appeared for interview before the Area Level Committee constituted for this purpose. It was alleged that the petitioner impersonated himself as son of Sri. Dasaiya, though in fact, he is the son of Late Dineshwar Saw. Consequent to such deception, appointment letter was issued to the petitioner as son of Sri. Dasaiya and he joined Saunda ‘D’ Colliery on 04-01-1979. Further allegation was that the petitioner, in connivance with the unknown officials of CCL, also managed to enter his actual parentage in his Service Book maintained in the Colliery by the CCL authorities. 9. Consequent to such deception, appointment letter was issued to the petitioner as son of Sri. Dasaiya and he joined Saunda ‘D’ Colliery on 04-01-1979. Further allegation was that the petitioner, in connivance with the unknown officials of CCL, also managed to enter his actual parentage in his Service Book maintained in the Colliery by the CCL authorities. 9. After completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC against the petitioner. On 25-08-2009 charges were framed against the petitioner under the aforesaid sections, who pleaded not guilty. 10. In order to substantiate the charges, the accused had examined altogether 17 witnesses and a large number of documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. As recorded in the trial court judgment, PW-1 had stated that one of the dependent member of the retiring employee who had attained the age of 18-25 years could get employment in lieu of the retiring employee as per the scheme and to get the benefit of the scheme an application was to be filed in the given proforma-A addressed to the project officer and upon verification the project officer was required to send the application to Area Level Committee and thereafter Area Level Committee was to verify the same. He has also deposed that after satisfaction, Area Level Committee was to take interview and thereafter order was passed for employment of the dependent and retirement of the employee. This witness has also stated that a list of persons to be interviewed dated 14.12.1978 was issued and in Serial No. 5 and name of Dasaiya was entered and name of his son Bhim (present petitioner). In the minutes 13 names were approved by the Area Level Committee and in serial no. 4 name of Dasaiya and his son Bhim (the petitioner) was entered. The interview was conducted and recommendation of the Area Level Committee was approved by the General Manager. On identification by PW-1, the list was marked as Exhibit-1 and recommendation of Area Level Committee and approval was marked as Exhibit 1/1 with objection. PW-2 to PW-5 are employees of CCL and have deposed on the point of maintenance of service record and the manner in which petitioner was given employment on the basis of declaration of Dasaiya and after interview of the petitioner as well as Dasaiya. PW-2 to PW-5 are employees of CCL and have deposed on the point of maintenance of service record and the manner in which petitioner was given employment on the basis of declaration of Dasaiya and after interview of the petitioner as well as Dasaiya. It has come in evidence that photo of Dasaiya was verified and that in form B father’s name of the petitioner has been mentioned as Dasaiya, Dineshwar Saw. The seizure of the various documents have also been proved. The other witnesses from PW-6 onwards have proved that Dasaiya has a number of sons and other family members and have consistently stated that Dasaiya had not adopted the petitioner as his son. Even the genealogical table of Dasaiya and his family was exhibited and proved. This court finds that the application in proforma-A, filed by the retiring employee (Dasaiya) as per the scheme, has not been exhibited in the present case. 11. Five defence witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence and one document was exhibited as exhibit-A, the order of Block Development Officer through which DW-3 was declared as Mukhiya of Patratu Panchayat. The specific case of the defence was that the petitioner was adopted son of Dasaiya. However, neither any documentary evidence was produced nor any eye-witness was produced to prove the adoption of the petitioner by Dasaiya. 12. After considering the evidences on record, the learned trial court recorded the findings at Para 44 as follows:- “44. In the discussions made above it has well been proved that the accused wrongly projected himself to be adopted son of Dasaiya and on that basis he got appointment in Central Coal Fields Ltd. under male voluntary retirement scheme in place of Dasaiya. No document has been produced on behalf of the defence to show that the accused was the adopted son of Dasaiya. According to section 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 adoptive father or mother by whom adoption is made must not have a Hindu son, son’s son or son’s son’s son. Further in the present case from oral and documentary evidence, it has well been proved that the accused cheated Central Coalfields Ltd. by presenting himself to be adopted son of Dasaiya. The accused also dishonestly concealed the fact that he is not the adopted son of Dasaiya. Such kind of concealment tantamount to deception within the meaning of cheating. Further in the present case from oral and documentary evidence, it has well been proved that the accused cheated Central Coalfields Ltd. by presenting himself to be adopted son of Dasaiya. The accused also dishonestly concealed the fact that he is not the adopted son of Dasaiya. Such kind of concealment tantamount to deception within the meaning of cheating. By such concealment he dishonestly induced Central Coalfields Ltd. to consider his name and finally got appointed as piece rated worker in Saunda ‘D’ Colliery in place of Dasaiya under male voluntary retirement scheme launched by Central Coal Fields Ltd. Further oral and documentary evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution goes in favour of prosecution and offence under Section 419/420 IPC committed by the accused has been proved in all respects.” 13. The learned lower appellate court recorded its findings in Para 16 to 19 of its judgment. In Para 19, the learned lower appellate court held that obviously the petitioner was the custodian of the records, and if manipulation or interpolation was done, it was not possible without connivance of some CCL employees and admittedly none of the CCL employees were charge sheeted. However, the learned lower appellate court held that the same cannot be a ground for acquittal of the petitioner. The learned lower appellate court held that the trial court has rightly came to this conclusion that petitioner is not adoptive son of Dasaiya Bauri and when petitioner is not the adoptive son of Dasaiya Bauri, his appointment in CCL cannot be legal under aforesaid scheme and hence clear-cut case of impersonation and cheating is made out. Findings of this Court: 14. As per the prosecution case, one Sri. Dasaiya was working as Clipman in Saunda ‘D’ Colliery of CCL. A male voluntary retirement scheme was launched by the CCL in the 1978 under which he sought voluntary retirement. As per the scheme, one of the dependent member of the retiring employee was to get employment in CCL in lieu of the retirement sought by the existing employee. It was the specific case of the prosecution that Sri. Dasaiya at the time of seeking such retirement declared the petitioner as his son and the petitioner along with Sri. Dasaiya appeared for interview before the Area Level Committee constituted for the purpose and got the employment. It was the specific case of the prosecution that Sri. Dasaiya at the time of seeking such retirement declared the petitioner as his son and the petitioner along with Sri. Dasaiya appeared for interview before the Area Level Committee constituted for the purpose and got the employment. It has been alleged that the petitioner has impersonated himself as son of Sri. Dasaiya though in fact he is son of Late Sri. Dineshwar Saw. 15. It was the specific case of the petitioner that he was adopted son of Dasaiya and for which he led evidence of five witnesses but could not prove the factum of adoption as per the impugned judgments. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court reported in (2018) 11 SCC 119 (Supra) and has submitted that the impugned judgments on the point of adoption is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble supreme court and hence perverse. 16. This court finds that in the said judgment the issues for consideration was (a) Whether the person who alleges the existence of a custom need not prove the same because it is judicially accepted and (b) Whether the appellant in the said case could plead and prove the factum of adoption? The Hon’ble Supreme court has observed in Para 20 of the said judgment that there are numerous judgments that the burden of proving adoption is a heavy one and if there is no documentary evidence in support of adoption, the court should be very cautious in relying upon oral evidence. This court finds that in the instant case the evidence of the petitioner to prove the factum of adoption has been rejected by the learned court below by holding that there is no documentary evidence to prove adoption and none of the defence witnesses are eye witness to the adoption as claimed by the petitioner. The learned court below has also considered the fact that the petitioner was not living in the house of Dasaiya and had not inherited any property of Dasaiya after his death and in fact Dasaiya had a number of sons and brothers. The learned court below has also considered the fact that the petitioner was not living in the house of Dasaiya and had not inherited any property of Dasaiya after his death and in fact Dasaiya had a number of sons and brothers. So far as the point of ingredients of section 419 and 420 of IPC are concerned, the learned courts below have come to concurrent findings that the petitioner had impersonated himself as adopted son of Dasaiya and had thereby cheated the CCL in the matter of getting public employment as back as in the year 1979. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not help the petitioner in any manner whatsoever as the basic ingredients of offence under section 419 and 420 have been found in the concurrent finding of facts recorded in the impugned judgments. This court finds that the judgment of the learned courts below on the point of adoption as well as on the point of offence under section 419 and 420 of IPC are well reasoned judgments and there being no illegality or perversity, no interference is called for by this court so far as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned. 17. However, on the point of sentence, this Court finds that the incident is of the year 1978-79 case was instituted in 2006; the petitioner was convicted on 30.07.2013; the appeal was dismissed on 24.05.2014 and the criminal revision remained pending before this Court since 2014 and as such, the petitioner has faced the rigours of the criminal case for more than 13 Years. He has already remained in jail custody for a total period of 05 months 11 days and he has no criminal antecedent. He has already been dismissed from his service and at present, he is aged about 61 Years. This court also finds that the prosecution case as per FIR was that Dasaiya had wrongly declared the petitioner as his son and the petitioner as well as Dasaiya had appeared before the scrutiny committee and thus the petitioner has wrongfully obtained employment in CCL by declaring himself as the son of Dasaiya. The findings of the learned court below are that the petitioner had cheated CCL by presenting himself to be the adopted son of Dasaiya. The findings of the learned court below are that the petitioner had cheated CCL by presenting himself to be the adopted son of Dasaiya. It has neither come in evidence as to why and under what circumstances Dasaiya had declared the petitioner as his adopted son and on what basis this declaration by Dasaiya was accepted as correct by the scrutiny committee before whom the petitioner as well as Dasaiya had appeared for interview prior to appointment. The petitioner in his evidence could not prove his adoption by Dasaiya. It is not the case of the prosecution that any other person from the family of Dasaiya was eligible for appointment as per the scheme and such person has been deprived of his rights. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be served if the sentence of the petitioner is modified by limiting the sentence to the period already undergone by him in custody and the fine amount is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-. 18. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him in jail custody and the fine is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner before the learned trial court or its successor court within two months from today. On deposition of the aforesaid fine amount, the bailors of the petitioner shall stand discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 19. If the aforesaid enhanced fine amount is not deposited by the petitioner within the stipulated time frame, the petitioner would undergo the punishment which has been imposed upon him by the impugned judgment. 20. Accordingly, with the aforesaid modification in the sentence of the petitioner, this criminal revision is hereby disposed. 21. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned. 22. Let this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through FAX.