JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Since both these applications arise out of same judgment and are interconnected, both are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. These revision applications are directed against the judgment dated 29.05.2004 passed by learned Addl. Distt. & Session Judge, FTC-I, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2002/45 of 2004; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.08.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in complain case No.C/1-102/1997, corresponding to T.R. No.415/2002; whereby the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo 1 year Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 years Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 420 IPC along with a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment they will have to undergo further sentence for a period of 2 months simple imprisonment; has been partly affirmed and the conviction u/s 406 IPC passed by the trial Court was set aside. 4. The prosecution case in short is that the complainant/O.P.No.2 was running his business of Sugar Cane Juice. Further case of the complainant is that the above named accused asked him to purchase 407 Maxi- Taxi and earn more and they will manage for its finance. Thereafter the complainant/O.P.No.2 sold his landed property and paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the accused persons as advance for purchasing Maxi-Taxi. Thereafter complainant further paid a sum of Rs.40,500/- to the accused persons. But on repeated demands the accused persons neither returned the said amount nor gave the Maxi-Taxi to the complainant/O.P.No.2. Thereafter the present complaint was lodged. On the basis of the complaint, the instant case was registered and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet. Accordingly, charge was framed against the petitioners for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and finally they were convicted. 5. At the outset, Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not habitual offenders and the allegation is not serious in nature. Accordingly, charge was framed against the petitioners for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and finally they were convicted. 5. At the outset, Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not habitual offenders and the allegation is not serious in nature. He further submits that the case is of the year 1997 and looking to the rigors of ongoing trial and now the petitioners are aged about 70, 55 and 80 years and they also remained in custody for 20 and 41 days (petitioner Nos.2 & 3 in Cr.Rev.No.671/04) and 378 days (petitioner in Cr.Rev.No.762/04); as such, he is confining his prayer only on the question of sentence and sending them back to jail at this stage even for short period will hamper the entire family; as such the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine. 6. Learned counsel for the State and Ms. Riya Narayan learned Amicus appearing for the O.P.No.2 supported the judgments and submits that there is no error in the finding given by the courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine. 7. After going through the impugned judgment including the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained. 8. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1997 and about 25 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 25 years. It is not stated that the petitioners of respective applications have ever misused the privilege of bail and petitioner No.1 Kalpana Sarkar remained in custody for 20 days and she is aged about 70 years, Petitioner No.2 Titu remained in custody for 41 days and he is aged about 55 years likewise in Cr. Rev. No.762/04 petitioner-Samir Kumar Sarkar remained in custody for 378 days and he is aged about 80 years. 9. Rev. No.762/04 petitioner-Samir Kumar Sarkar remained in custody for 378 days and he is aged about 80 years. 9. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners/convicts back to prison; rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine. 10. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioners of both the applications are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 7500/- jointly (for the petitioners in Cr. Rev. No.671/2004) and Rs.3500/- (for the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No.762/2004). 11. It is made clear that petitioners shall pay the aforesaid fine amount within a period of 4 months from today before the DLSA, Jamshedpur; failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned court below. 12. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision application is disposed of. 13. The respective petitioners of both the applications shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition. 14. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bills as per the guidelines. 15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the courts below, Secretary, DLSA, Jamshedpur and also to the petitioners through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station. 16. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.