JUDGMENT :

Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

1. The instant revision has been directed against the verdict of conviction dated 21.4.2009 and the consequent thereto order of sentence dated 22.4.2009, whereby, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fatehaband has convicted the petitioners in FIR No. 550 dated 18.10.1997 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 205/419/420/465/467/468/471 read with Section 120-B IPC and the sentence, as imposed upon the petitioners, is extracted below:-

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. In addition, the instant revision petition has also been directed against the judgment dated 13.7.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence (supra) were upheld and the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case, as emerged from the FIR read as under:

"On 22.12.1995 Beera Bai widow of Amir Chand the complainant filed a written complaint before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad alleging that her husband Amir Chand solemnized second marriage with Rani Bai, Des Raj is the grand son of Rani Bai. After the death of Amir Chand, she inherited the land measuring 23 kanals 1 Marla. However, the accused filed a civil suit No.371 of 1993 titled as Des Raj Versus Beera Bai in order to commit fraud with the complainant and to get undue benefit. Accused Des Raj impersonated the complainant and got civil court judgment and decree dated 22.5.1993 which is based on fraud. On the basis of the aforesaid civil court judgment and decree, mutation No. 485 dated 2.9.1994 was sanctioned without giving notice to the complainant Des Raj sold this land to Nayab Singh, Jagdeep Singh, Jaspal Singh and Baldev Singh. The complainant never appeared in the court in the case titled Des Raj Vs. Beera Bai. She never appointed Sh. S.K. Batra, Advocate as her counsel. All these proceedings took place in her absence. Since a fraud has been committed with her, she prayed to take appropriate action against the culprits. On the basis of information, formal FIR Ex.PW11/A was registered. The investigation commenced. Accused Jaggo Bai impersonated the complainant and accused Fauja Singh identified Jaggo Bai as Beera Bai. Thumb impressions/signatures of complainant and accused taken and got compared. The accused were arrested. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. After usual investigations, the police found sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and as such, a charge sheet was filed against them in the court of Haga Magistrate to face trial."

4. The petitioners were charged under Sections 205/465/466/467/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution examined a total of fourteen witnesses, in order to prove its case.

6. The petitioners did not produce any evidence in defence but have tendered a copy of compromise (Ex.Dl) and order dated 26.7.2002 (Ex.D2).

7. The learned trial Court, after examining the entire evidence available on the file and hearing the arguments of the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioners as mentioned here-in-above.

8. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence (supra), the petitioners preferred a statutory appeal before the learned First Appellate Court concerned. However, the same met the same fate and now the present petitioners have preferred the instant revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the Courts below.

9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, who submitted that they don't wish to challenge the judgment of conviction pertaining to the petitioners, but they pray for the reduction of sentence, as awarded to the present petitioners to be reduced to the period already undergone by them. For this, they submitted that the present FIR, was registered way back on 18.10.1997. The petitioners ha