The court considered mitigating factors such as age, duration of benefit, and time spent in custody in modifying the sentences, highlighting the importance of considering individual circumstances in sentencing.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners alongwith Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Rohit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-C.B.I..

3. The present criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 22.10.2011 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge-1, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 34/1992 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and upheld the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 03.07.1992 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 18 of 1985(D) / T.R. No. 287/1991.

4. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioners for offence under Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 420 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 420 of IPC and in default of payment of fine of Rs.1000/-, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that although certain arguments were advanced on the previous date, but he has been instructed to confine his arguments on the point of sentences of the petitioners.

6. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have been convicted for offence under Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code for having used a forged matriculation certification for obtaining promotion to the post of Munshi Grade-III in Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a Public Sector Company. He submitted that the petitioners were already working in the organization and the matter does not relate to getting employment on the basis of forged certificate, but it is only a matter of promotion on the basis of forged certificate. He further submitted that interview for the promotion was held on 15.05.1980 and thereafter, the petitioners were promoted and the F.I.R. was lodged in the year 1985 and thus, the petitioners at best have enjoyed the promotional benefits for a short duration of a little more than four years only. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners do not have any other case and they are poor persons. The learned counsel submitted that the Petitioner No.1 was dismissed from his service in the year 2012 and Petitioner No.2 ultimately retired from his service in the year 2017.

7. The learned counsel submitted that as per the records of the case, the present age of the petitioners is more than 58 years and the F.I.R. being of the year 1985, the petitioners have faced the rigours of the criminal case for a long time i.e. for about 36 years. He further submitted that the petitioners have remained in custody in connection with the present case from 02.01.1986 to 15.02.1986 for a period about 45 days during trial and for a period from 13.12.2011 to 27.03.2012 during the pendency of the present petition i.e. for a total period of more than five months. He submitted that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the sentences of the petitioners may be modified by confining it to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody. He also submitted that the fine amount may be enhanced under each section.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-C.B.I. submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below in connection with the conviction under Section 420 of the IPC as well as Section 471 of IPC and no interference as such is called for, so far as conviction is concerned. The learned counsel also submitted that so far as the sentence is concerned, it is for the court to take a decision in the matter. However, th