The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to modify sentences based on the age and circumstances of the accused, and the direction for the deposit of fine amounts with victim compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners along with Mr. Santosh Kr. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Heard Mrs. Nikki Sinha, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State.

3. Heard Mr. Shailendra Jit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner no. 1 has expired during the pendency of the present case. However, she submits that fine was also imposed against him.

5. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner no. 2 is wife of petitioner no. 1 and is accordingly the legal representative of petitioner no. 1. Accordingly, he submits that liability, if any, in connection with the fine imposed upon petitioner no. 1 will be borne by petitioner no. 2.

6. Considering the fact that the petitioner no. 1 has expired, office is directed to delete the name of petitioner no. 1 by red ink. It is observed that petitioner no. 2, being the wife and the legal representative of the petitioner no. 1, the fine amount imposed upon petitioner no. 1 will be taken care of by the petitioner no. 2 depending upon the merits of the case.

7. The learned counsel for the surviving petitioner has submitted that to the best of his knowledge, the fine amount has already been deposited before the learned court below by both the original petitioners and in case of any non-deposit of the fine amount, the same will be borne by petitioner no. 2, for both the original petitioners.

8. The present revision has been filed against the judgment dated 27.09.2012 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge –cum- Special Judge (L.A.) Hazaribagh in Cr. Appeal No. 189 of 2011 whereby the appellate court has upheld and maintained the conviction of the both the original petitioners under Sections 465, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code, but acquitted them for offence under Sections 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code.

9. The original petitioners were convicted vide judgment passed in C.C. No. 12 of 2004 (T.R. No. 424 of 2011) by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag on 01.09.2011 for offence under Sections 419/420/465/467/468/34 of Indian Penal Code and were sentenced as follows:

In default of payment of fine, the original petitioners were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.

Arguments on behalf of the surviving petitioner

10. The learned counsel for the surviving petitioner has confined his arguments on the point of sentence. He has submitted that the present age of the surviving petitioner is 62 years and she is a lady. The case was instituted as back as in the year 2004 for incident of the year 2003 and more than 17 years have elapsed from the date of incident. He also submits that the present offence is the first offence of the surviving petitioner and she is a house wife. The learned counsel submits that the allegation in the present case is that immovable property was purchased in the name of the surviving petitioner from one Malti Devi, but Malti Devi was impersonated by someone else and both the original petitioners, being husband and wife were convicted as aforesaid and the other accused i.e. deed writer, person identifying Malti Devi, etc. were ultimately acquitted.

11. The learned counsel submits that a suit was also filed f