ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Vishwanath Ray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.

3. The instant revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 08.10.2013 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 10 of 2013 by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Latehar, whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioners vide judgment dated 21.01.2013 passed in G.R. Case No. 74 of 2008 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar has been upheld. The petitioner No.-1 has been convicted under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and the petitioner No.-2 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Sections 419 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his argument on the point of sentence.

Arguments of the petitioners

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the date of incident in the present case is 27.02.2008 and on the date of conviction i.e. on 21.01.2013, both the petitioners were 23 years of age as per the recording of the age in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court. He submits that the petitioners were of tender age and the instant offence is the first offence of the petitioners. He also submits that more than 13 years have elapsed from the date of incident and the petitioners have remained in custody for a period of more than one month during the pendency of the present revision petition. He submits that admittedly on the date of occurrence, both the petitioners were students and the petitioner No.-2 was caught impersonating the petitioner No.-1 while giving the examination in the school. The learned counsel submits that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, some lenient view may be taken by this Court and sentence be modified.

Arguments of the opposite party-State

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State, on the other hand, has submitted that both the learned courts below have returned concurrent finding of facts and no interference so far as the conviction is concerned, is called for in revisional jurisdiction. He submits that the judgments passed by both the learned courts below are well-reasoned judgments which do not call for any interference.

7. However, on the point of sentence, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that the same is left to the discretion of the court, considering the age of the petitioners at the time of commission of offence and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. He does not dispute the fact that as per the records of the present case, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners. However, the learned counsel submits that in case this Court is inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners on the point of sentence, then some fine may be imposed, so that such acts are not repeated by the petitioners.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on a written report in printed letter pad of Government Girls High School, Latehar, Jharkhand by the Principal-cum-Examination Centre Superintendent of the said school to the Officer-in-charge, Latehar on 27.02.2008. It was alleged that on 27.02.2008 in the second period the examination of History of intermediate class was going on. In the said examination centre room No.-7, Mukesh Kumar Singh was caught red handed by invigilators, namely, Smt. Indu Marki and Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav during the intermediate examination on 27.02.2008 in place of co-accused Munna Prasad bearing Roll No. 30546. The aforesaid invigilators were deputed in the said examination centre by the local District Superintendent of Education, Latehar and thereafter the said accused were handed over by the said Princi