ORDER : P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Under challenge in this criminal revision petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioners under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC. 2. The revision petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.524 of 2006 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, North Paravur. They along with another accused, stood trial for committing the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat PW1 and to make wrongful gain and thereafter in furtherance of the same, entered into an agreement for sale with him for selling 5 cents of land in survey No.76/11 of Eloor Village. The said property was subject matter of O.S.No.63/95 on the files of the Sub Court Paravur. At the time of entering into the agreement, the accused were aware that the property was already attached by the Sub Court and that there exist a decree not to alienate the property, except to PW5. By suppressing the real facts, with a view to deceive and obtain money, the accused entered into an agreement to sell the property for Rs.2,65,000/- on 19.11.2005 and thereafter, sold it by way of a registered sale deed on 28.11.2005. 4. In the trial court, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW6 were examined, and Exts.P1 to P10 documents were marked. On examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in evidence and contended that they are innocent. No evidence was adduced from the side of the accused. During the pendency of the case in the trial court, the 3 rd accused died. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC and convicted them thereunder. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 IPC. The accused were also ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/-each to PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month. 5. Accused Nos.1 and 2 carried the matter in appeal by filing Criminal Appeal No.124/2014 before the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur. The accused were also ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/-each to PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month. 5. Accused Nos.1 and 2 carried the matter in appeal by filing Criminal Appeal No.124/2014 before the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur. The said court by judgment dated 05.01.2016, dismissed the appeal. 6. Heard Sri.Jojo.A.V, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Shri.Sanal.P.Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court have not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the accused. He argued that when the 1 st accused sold the property to PW1, the revision petitioners were not having any knowledge/information regarding the decree or the attachment passed in the suit and the revision petitioners themselves, are victims of fraud committed by the 3 rd accused. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had a dishonest intention at the very inception itself to cheat PW1 and therefore, the offences, as alleged, will not lie. He relied on the decisions in Scania Commercial Vehicles India Pvt Ltd. v. Agy George (2023 KHC 9116), Sajan T Sunny v. State of Kerala [ 2024(1) KHC 457 ], to contend that the ingredients required for attracting the offences under Sections 120B and 420 IPC are not made out in the instant case. He also submitted that the prosecution has not examined the investigating officer and there is a delay of one month in filing the complaint and the same is fatal to the prosecution case. 8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. He submitted that the evidence of PW5 would show that the 2 nd accused, at the time of purchase of the property on 29.07.2004, was fully aware of the pendency of the suit and the attachment prevailing over the property and that he had thereafter sold it to the 1 st accused who in turn, has sold it to PW1. He submitted that the evidence of PW5 would show that the 2 nd accused, at the time of purchase of the property on 29.07.2004, was fully aware of the pendency of the suit and the attachment prevailing over the property and that he had thereafter sold it to the 1 st accused who in turn, has sold it to PW1. He argued that from the evidence of PW1 to PW4, it can be seen that accused Nos.1 to 3 were present together during the discussions relating to the sale of the property to PW1 and that they have not disclosed the attachment in the suit to PW1. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the afore facts clearly show that there was a concerted effort on the part of the accused together and that they had a dishonest intention at the very inception itself, to deceive PW1 and obtain money from him by selling the property, which was already attached. He contended that, PW1 was constrained to purchase the property and part with his money as a result of such a deception. 9. The prosecution case is that the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy and thereafter, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, dishonestly induced the PW1 to purchase 5 cents of land belonging to the 1 st accused and made PW1 to part with the consideration by concealing the fact that the property in issue is already under attachment by the orders of civil court. It is the prosecution case that while O.S.No.63/1995 filed by PW5 against the 3 rd accused was pending before the Sub Court and an attachment was prevailing, the 3 rd accused had sold the property involved in the suit to the 2 nd accused as per Ext.P4 document on 29.7.2004 and that the 2 nd accused had purchased the same fully knowing about the attachment. Thereafter, the 2 nd accused sold the said property to the first accused as per Ext.P5 document dated 13.10.2004 and he, in turn, sold it to PW1 on 28.11.2005 as per Ext.P2. It is their case that all the accused, who were fully aware about the attachment in the suit, has conspired together and had, by concealing the attachment, made PW1 purchase the property after parting with the sale consideration. 10. It is their case that all the accused, who were fully aware about the attachment in the suit, has conspired together and had, by concealing the attachment, made PW1 purchase the property after parting with the sale consideration. 10. The materials on record show that the prosecution, in order to establish its case, is mainly relying upon the evidence of PW1 to PW5. The evidence of PW1 shows that he had purchased 5 cents of land standing in the name of the first accused, as per Ext.P2 document, on 28.11.2005. At that time, PW1 was informed that even though the property stood in the name of the 1 st accused, the actual owner was the 2 nd accused and it is the 3 rd accused who has given the property to him. His evidence clearly shows that at the time of discussions for the sale of the property, when the agreement for sale was entered and in the course of execution of the sale deed, all the accused were present. It further shows that all the accused have participated in the discussions which led to the sale of the property and that none of them have informed him about the pendency of O.S.No.63/1995 or about the orders passed in it. PW1 also stated that when he started to construct a house in the property, the Amin came and delivered the property to PW5, who is the decree holder in O.S.No.63/1995. 11. The evidence of PW2, who is the brother-in-law of PW1 supports the evidence of PW1 and shows that at the time when PW1 paid the price of the property to the 1 st accused, accused Nos.2 and 3 were present. The evidence of PW2 also shows that he was present at the time when the agreement was executed, the advance was paid, and when the registration took place and that on all those occasions the accused did not mention anything about the pendency of the case. Similarly, the evidence of PW3 shows that PW1 has purchased the property from the accused and that at the time of agreement, accused Nos.1 to 3, PW4 the broker, and one Simi were present. Similarly, the evidence of PW3 shows that PW1 has purchased the property from the accused and that at the time of agreement, accused Nos.1 to 3, PW4 the broker, and one Simi were present. His evidence clearly shows that at the time of executing the agreement, none of the accused mentioned about the pendency of the suit and on the other hand, they have categorically stated that there were no liabilities upon the property. PW4, the broker, deposed that when PW1 approached him seeking a property, he had shown the property in possession of accused Nos.2 and 3. He also stated that advance for the transaction was paid to the 2 nd accused, in the presence of the 3 rd accused and from the brokerage of Rs.10,000/- received by him, he had paid half of it to the 3 rd accused. It is also discernible from his evidence that at the time when PW1 paid the advance, all the accused were present. 12. Apart from the evidence of the afore witnesses, the most crucial evidence is that of PW5, who is the decree holder in OS. No.63/95. His evidence reveals that he had entered into an agreement for sale with the 3 rd accused for purchasing 5 cents of land and since, the 3 rd accused did not execute a sale deed, had to file a suit and obtain a decree in his favour. He also also stated that the appeal preferred by the 3 rd accused ended in dismissal and he got the property delivered in 2005. His evidence further reveals that during the pendency of the suit, the 2 nd accused had approached him and had made enquiries about the suit and even after, he informed about the case, the 2 nd accused had told him that he is going to purchase the property. PW5 also stated that Ext.P9 is the order of attachment passed in O.S.No.63/1995. 13. As held in the decision in Sajan T Sunny (cited supra), to bring home the charge of conspiracy, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. Every act of commission or omission would not result in hatching a criminal conspiracy unless, the acts have been done deliberately and there is meeting of minds of all concerned. Every act of commission or omission would not result in hatching a criminal conspiracy unless, the acts have been done deliberately and there is meeting of minds of all concerned. It is the law that in cases of conspiracy, direct evidence may not be available in all cases and the same can be proved through circumstantial evidence also. Similarly, it is a settled law, as held in Scania Commercial Vehicles India Pvt.Ltd. (cited supra), that the prosecution must prove that the accused had an intention to defraud the complainant right from the inception of the transaction itself in order to sustain a conviction under Section 420 IPC. Apart from that, the prosecution must also prove that as a consequence of cheating, the accused has dishonestly induced a person to deceive and deliver any property to any person. 14. In the instant case, from the evidence, as discussed afore, it can be seen that even before the 2 nd accused purchased the property from the third accused, he was fully aware of the pendency of O.S.No.63/1995 and its status. The evidence of PW5 coupled with Ext.P9 shows that the property in question has been attached as early as on 31.01.995. The 2 nd accused has purchased the property from the 3 rd accused only on 29.7.2004, as per Ext.P4. Immediately thereafter, within a short span of time, the 2 nd accused sold the said property to the first accused on 13.10.2004, as per Ext.P5 document. It is very pertinent to note that there is no whisper in Ext.P5 regarding the pendency of the suit or regarding the existence of any liability or attachment over the property. Similarly, the evidence further reveals that the first accused has sold the property to PW1, as per Ext.P2 document on 28.11.2005 and that the said document is also silent regarding the pendency of the suit or about the existence of any attachment or liability in the said property. Further, on going through the evidence of PW1 to PW4, it is to be seen that all the accused were present while the discussions for the purchase of the property was going and when the agreement for sale was executed and the advance paid. There is absolutely no explanation for the presence of accused Nos. Further, on going through the evidence of PW1 to PW4, it is to be seen that all the accused were present while the discussions for the purchase of the property was going and when the agreement for sale was executed and the advance paid. There is absolutely no explanation for the presence of accused Nos. 2 and 3 during those times, since they have no role in a transaction between the 1 st accused (the owner of the property) and PW1. Their evidence also categorically show that none of the accused and especially the 2 nd accused, has not disclosed about the pendency of suit or the orders passed in it during all these times and instead has even made a representation that there were no liabilities on the property. From the afore conduct of the accused, it can be safely deduced that all of them have conspired together and have acted in a concert, by concealing a material fact and dishonestly inducing PW1 to purchase the property. The inaction on the part of the accused, and especially the 2 nd accused, in not disclosing the pendency of the suit and the order passed in it, a material fact which all of them were aware, itself substantiates the fact that there was a dishonest intention on the part of the accused at the inception itself, to cheat PW1 and make him purchase the property and part with the sale consideration. 15. In the light of the afore discussions, I find that no error or illegality is committed by the trial court in appreciating the evidence and in arriving at a conclusion of guilt against the accused under section 120B and 420 IPC. Therefore, the challenge raised by the revision petitioners on merits fail. 16. The next question to be considered is regarding the sentence. It is to be seen that both the revision petitioners have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, each under Sections 120B and 420 IPC. Therefore, the challenge raised by the revision petitioners on merits fail. 16. The next question to be considered is regarding the sentence. It is to be seen that both the revision petitioners have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, each under Sections 120B and 420 IPC. Considering the nature of allegations, its gravity, the fact that the incident took place in the year 2005 and the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the substantive sentence imposed on the revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 can be modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for a period of two months, each for the offence under Sections 120B and 420 IPC. But I am also of the view that no interference is required with the amount of compensation awarded and the default sentence imposed for its non payment. 17. In the result, this criminal revision petition is allowed in part as follows: (i) The conviction of the revision petitioners/accused No. 1 and 2 under Sections 120B and 420 IPC in CC No.524/2006 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- I, North Paravur and as confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.124/2014 by the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur, is upheld. (ii) The sentence imposed on the revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 is modified and reduced to one of simple imprisonment for a period of two months, each for the offences under Section 120B and 420 IPC. (iii) The revision petitioners/accused 1 and 2 are also ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- each to PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in case of default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. (iv) The sentences shall run concurrently and set off is also granted.