ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh by the impugned judgment and order dated 13th April, 2024 has dismissed an application Misc. Criminal Case No. 35883 of 2022 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Cr. PC] filed by the appellants observing that no case for interference was set up by them. 3. Vide judgment and order dated 17th January, 2006 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Umaria in S.T. No. 273 of 2002, the appellants were convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC] and consequently sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and seven years, respectively, with fine. 4. The conviction and sentence, as aforesaid, were carried in an appeal [Cr. A. No.208 of 2006] by the appellants before the High Court under Section 374(2), Cr. PC. The High Court vide judgment and order dated 24th August, 2018 affirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 498-A, IPC recorded by the trial court as well as the sentence of a year's imprisonment. At the same time, the conviction of the appellants under Section 304-B, IPC was set aside by the High Court. 5. Limited notice was issued on the special leave petition on the question of sentence by a coordinate bench of this Court on 21st May, 2024. There is little doubt that the coordinate bench was under the impression that disposal of the criminal appeal by the High Court was under challenge. Actually, we too were initially labouring under the same impression. Be that as it may. 6. In the application under section 482, Cr. PC, what the appellants had argued was that they were not heard on the question of sentence and thereby, the mandatory provision of section 235, Cr. PC was observed in the breach. The learned Judge of the High Court observed that since the appellants had been sentenced to a year's imprisonment upon conviction being recorded for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC and on affirmation of such conviction and sentence in appeal, there was no requirement to hear them on sentence twice over. 7. PC was observed in the breach. The learned Judge of the High Court observed that since the appellants had been sentenced to a year's imprisonment upon conviction being recorded for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC and on affirmation of such conviction and sentence in appeal, there was no requirement to hear them on sentence twice over. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the High Court while dismissing the appeal failed to notice that the amicus curiae appointed by it, to press the case of the appellants, did not serve any notice on the appellants and, therefore, the merits of the appeal were not placed in the proper perspective for a decision before the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction. In any event, the High Court having set aside the conviction under Section 304-B, IPC together with the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment, it ought to have heard the appellants once again on the question of sentence to be awarded for the conviction under Section 498-A, IPC. 8. It is also submitted that while the first appellant is a septuagenarian, the second appellant is a sexagenarian; and they having served imprisonment of four months already out of the one-year prison term and since the incident of offence dates back to February, 2002, the sentence ought to be altered to the term of imprisonment already undergone. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh submits that having regard to the limited scope of the application under Section 482, Cr. PC filed before the High Court by the appellants, question of interfering with the sentence does not and cannot arise. He refers to the fact that the appellants' appeal against the conviction under Section 498-A, IPC and sentence of a year's imprisonment having been dismissed by the High Court and there being no further challenge, the same has attained finality. According to him, the appellants by filing an application under Section 482, Cr. PC could not have urged a coordinate bench of the High Court to reopen the question of imposition of sentence on the ground that they were largely unrepresented when the appeal was decided. He has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the materials on record. 11. There is, undoubtedly, force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent. He has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the materials on record. 11. There is, undoubtedly, force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent. We, therefore, do not propose to interfere with the judgment and order under challenge in this appeal. 12. However, nothing precludes us from treating this appeal to be directed against the appellate judgment and order dated 24th August, 2018, whereby the appellants' appeal was partially allowed, and examining the correctness thereof. In fact, we propose to exercise powers conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution of India in the light of the special facts and circumstances. 13. It is not in dispute that the appellant no.1 is 73 years old, whereas the appellant no.2 is 63 years old. It does appear that the appellants were handicapped in placing their submission before the High Court, while it was seized of their criminal appeal. The advocate engaged by the appellants did not appear. The amicus curiae appointed by the High Court made no attempt to contact the appellants. The appellants have pleaded that they were not aware of the appeal having been listed. True it is, it was the obligation of the appellants to keep track of the appellate proceedings, yet, in the absence of notice, on facts of the present case, the appellants' participation in the appellate proceedings (though their case was ably argued by the amicus curiae, leading to setting aside of the conviction under Section 304-B, IPC) seems to be an incomplete extension of the right of full and fair hearing on all points. While the amicus curiae spared no effort to have the conviction under Section 304-B, IPC to be set at naught, there was less effort to have the conviction under Section 498-A, IPC set aside too resulting in upholding of the conviction thereunder. In the meanwhile, however, the son of the appellants being the principal accused served the full term of imprisonment of 10 years. 14. In the meanwhile, however, the son of the appellants being the principal accused served the full term of imprisonment of 10 years. 14. Taking note of the grievance voiced by the appellants as well as with a view to do complete justice considering the special facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the sentence imposed by the sessions court, since affirmed by the appellate judgment of the High Court, is altered to the term of imprisonment already undergone. Ordered accordingly. 15. The appellate judgment and order dated 24th August, 2018 is, accordingly, modified. However, we direct the appellants to pay the fine imposed by the sessions court (if not already paid) within a period of three months from date, failing which this order shall stand revoked and they shall be taken into custody for serving the remainder of the prison term of nearly 8 months. 16. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of on the aforesaid terms. 17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.