JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. This criminal revision application has been filed against the order dated 14.09.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2012, convicting the petitioner No.2 under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted them for the offence under Sections 406/417 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellate court 1released the petitioner No. 1 on admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and sentenced the petitioner No. 2 for simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in the event of default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.

4. The learned trial court vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17.12.2011, passed in G.R. Case No. 297 of 2001/ T.R. No. 1491 of 2011 had convicted the petitioners under Section 406/34 and 417/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 417/34 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentenced were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction of the petitioner No.-2 under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as appropriate questions were not put to the petitioner No.-2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, the material regarding basic ingredient for offence under Section 420/34 of IPC was not put to the accused. He submits that in such circumstances, conviction of the petitioner No.-2 under Section 420/34 of IPC is perverse and is fit to be set-aside. He has also submitted that so far as petitioner No.-1 is concerned, the learned appellate court had extended her the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, but had illegally refused to extend the same benefit to the petitioner No.-2 (son of petitioner No.-1). He also submits that the petitioner No.-2 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offence under Section 420/34 of IPC and he has remained in custody in connection with the present case during the pendency of the revision petition for a period from 05.04.2013 to 03.05.2013. The learned counsel has also submitted that the FIR is dated 11.04.2001 and more than 20 years have elapsed from the date of the incident. He submits that on the date of conviction i.e. 17.12.2011, the petitioner No.-2 was 38 years of age and accordingly, the present age of the petitioner No.-2 is about 48 years. He submits that the petitioners do not have any previous conviction. The learned counsel submits that considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the sentence of petitioner No.-2, some sympathetic view may be taken and sentence be modified to the period already undergone by him in custody.

6. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 6 SCC 231 (Manjappa vs. State of Karnataka) as well as the judgment reported in (2012) 3 SCC 221 (Roy Fernandes vs. State of Goa and Ors.) on the point of sentence.

7. The learned counsel submits that the total amount which is alleged to have been taken by the petitioners from the informant was an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/-, which was sought to be returned by issuing the cheques, but those cheques had ultimately bounced as per the evidence on record.

Arguments on behalf of the opposite party-State

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State,