JUDGMENT : Pranjal Das, J. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of guilt against the petitioner under Section 419 IPC, the revision petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision petition under the provisions of 397 and 407 Cr.P.C. assailing these two judgments:- i) Judgment & order dated 05.05.2012 passed by the learned SDJM(S), Bongaigaon in GR Case No.103/2004; & ii) Judgment & order dated 13.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Bongaigaon in Crl.A. No.18(2)/2012. 3 . The case arose out of an incident occurred on 03.03.2004 during HSLC examination in the school, in which, the informant was working and the petitioner was alleged to have impersonated for the examination on behalf of one Newton Narzary having Roll No. B04-064 No.3125 and that he was caught red handed by so impersonating. 4. Upon police being informed, Dhaligaon P.S. Case No.14/2004 was registered under Section 419 /420 IPC and after investigation police submitted a charge-sheet under the same consequence. 5. Interestingly, the police sent the present revision petitioner as well as Newton Narzary to face trial and upon being charged by the learned SDJM(S), Bongaigaon, they faced trial, during which, prosecution examined 7 (seven) witnesses including the I/O. 6. After completion of trial, the trial Court did not find Newton Narzary guilty, but found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 419 IPC and he was convicted there under and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 (six) months for the conviction. The said judgment and sentence was taken up in an appeal and the learned Appellate Court was also pleased to affirm the same, as a result of which, the convict appellant as petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. The TCR in original was procured. 7. Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the concurrent findings of the Court with regard to conviction is wrong in facts and law. It is contended that the conviction is solely based upon extra judicial confession. The alleged extra judicial confession made by the petitioner before some persons and that there were infirmities in the said testimony, which in any case is the evidence of a very weak nature. 8. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the sample handwriting and the alleged seized answer script were sent to the FSL after considerable lapse of time, thereby casting doubts on its veracity. 9. 8. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the sample handwriting and the alleged seized answer script were sent to the FSL after considerable lapse of time, thereby casting doubts on its veracity. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, Ram Singh –vs- State of U.P. /b> reported in (2024) 4 SCC 208 and Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi –vs- State of Gujarat reported in (2023) 9 SCC 164 10 . I have heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, who was also taken the Court through the discussion of the depositions by the learned trial Court and the appellate Court, especially the deposition of PW 3, 4 and 6. 11 . Before proceeding, further it may be noted that a criminal revision against conviction is not a criminal second appeal in disguise. The revisional jurisdiction is exercised only to check whether the impugned judgments suffered from any jurisdictional errors; material irregularity; perversity; complete mis-appreciation of evidence causing miscarriage of justice and such related facts. The revisional Court in exercise of such jurisdiction has a limited mandate with regard to appreciation of evidence. Moreover, as far as concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court and First Appeal Court are concerned- the threshold of interference is even higher. 12 . Coming back to the facts of the case, it is true that the conviction has proceeded largely on three extra judicial confessions, which have been found to be acceptable by the learned Courts below. The learned Courts below have also accepted the expert opinion from the forensic laboratory about matching of the sample handwriting of the petitioner as accused and the handwriting on the seized answer-sheet at the time of the alleged impersonation. 13 . It is true that there is no rule of law that conviction cannot be based upon extra judicial confession. However, there is no doubt that it is an evidence of a weak nature and rule of prudence demands that such an evidence is accepted only after corroboration. In this regard, a reference may be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. reported in (2023) 6 SCC 605 . Paragraph 16 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- “ 16. In this regard, a reference may be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. reported in (2023) 6 SCC 605 . Paragraph 16 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- “ 16. It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has been held that where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. It has further been held that it is well-settled that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession. It has been held that there is no doubt that conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence.” 14 . During the trial, the learned Appellate Court have relied on such extra judicial confession referred to the judgment of Gura Singh –vs- State of Rajasthan reported in (2001) 2 SCC 205 15 . From the testimony of PW-1, it emerges that he was the Invigilator of the room of the HSLC examination, in which, the incident took place and that the petitioner was appearing in the examination in the name of one Newton Narzary. His testimony indicates that at the time of the incident, PW-6, Sujit Kumar Dhar, who was an exam controller and PW-3 Headmaster of the Dhaligaon High School and another teacher of Sishu Niketan entered into the room and took the petitioner directly to the office room. He has also testified about seizure of answer-script and question paper and he signed as a seizure witness. 16 . The testimony of PW-2 is more significant as he stated to be external in the examination at that centre. He has also stated on similar lines and corroborated about the incident of impersonation. From the point of view of the instant revision, his testimony assumes importance because he has deposed about the petitioner making the confession before him. 17 . PW-3 has also confirmed about the said confession of the petitioner/accused before them, when he was present. 18 . PW-3 also stated about the presence of PW-4, lecturer of Bijni college namely Manoranjan Sarma. 17 . PW-3 has also confirmed about the said confession of the petitioner/accused before them, when he was present. 18 . PW-3 also stated about the presence of PW-4, lecturer of Bijni college namely Manoranjan Sarma. The said PW-4 has also testified that immediately after the incident, the petitioner was brought to the room and questioned, whereupon he confessed about giving examination in place of Newton Narzary. 19 . PW-4 is also is also seizure witness with regard to the answer sheet. 20 . The I/O as PW-5 has testified about investigating the case and more importantly about taking three sheets of specimen handwriting and also seizure of documents by way of answer-sheet and sending them to FSL. 21 . The forensic official as PW-5 has confirmed that the sample handwriting in question, which were forensically examined were found to be of the same person. 22 . Upon analyzing and perusing the concurrent judgment especially the appellate judgment, within the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction against conviction based on concurrent findings of fact, I am of the considered opinion that there is no major infirmity in the extra judicial confession, which make them completely unacceptable and the learned Courts below did not err in relying upon the extra judicial confession. The judgment cited at the Bar would not assist the petitioner in this Court to take a different view in their favour. 23 . At the same time, what I find is that the scientific evidence lends support to the extra judicial confession. Thus, it can be said that the finding of guilt of the revision petitioner as accused was not just based on the extra judicial confession, but it proceeded on the basis of such extra judicial confession supported by the scientific evidence. Consequently, in exercise of criminal revisional jurisdiction, I do not find any scope for interference with the concurrent finding of fact by way of guilt of the petitioner recorded by the learned Court’s below. 24 . Thus, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 419 IPC is upheld and confirmed. With regard to the acquittal of co-accused, though he was charged under Section 419 IPC, but the said provision criminalizes the act of the person impersonating rather than the impersonated and no surprise that he was acquitted. 24 . Thus, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 419 IPC is upheld and confirmed. With regard to the acquittal of co-accused, though he was charged under Section 419 IPC, but the said provision criminalizes the act of the person impersonating rather than the impersonated and no surprise that he was acquitted. The learned trial Court did not choose to give the benefit of the provision of Offence Act to the petitioner. 25 . Considering that the criminal act was one of impersonation in public examination, there can be no quarrel with the said opinion and decision of the trial Court. However, the incident is of the year of 2004 and the revision petitioner has been facing criminal proceeding in different forums all these years. 26 . It is well settled that prolonged criminal proceeding can be taken as a factor for the purpose of sentencing, therefore, though the finding of conviction has been upheld, the interest of justice in my opinion necessitates modifying the sentence. 27 . Accordingly, in spite of sentence of S.I. 6 (six) months, the petitioner is imposed with a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), in default, SI for 2 (two) months. 28 . Revision petition stands dismissed, subject to the aforesaid modification and sentence. 29 . With the above observation and direction, the revision petition stands disposed of.