Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1750 of 2009 1. Bajrangwali Yadav, son of Rajendra Yadav 2.Baldev Yadav, son of Ayodhi Yadav Both residents of Village – Manikpur, PS Fulkaha (Narpatganj), District Araria ….Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Gaya Nand Yadav, son of Mahanthi Yadav, resident of Village Manikpur, PS Fulkaha (Narpatganj), District Araria …..Opposite Parties ---------------------------------- 03- 3/1/2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. Though notice was issued to opposite party no. 2 and validly served but nobody appears on his behalf when the case is taken up today. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 23.6.2008 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Araria, in Cr. Appeal No. 01/013 of 2000/ Tr. No. 01 of 2000 by which the appeal filed by the petitioners against their conviction and sentence has been dismissed, as well as the order dated 17.12.99 passed in G.R. Case No. 1171 of 1990 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Araria, by which the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under [STATUTE] and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and pay fine of Rs.3000/- 2 and in default to serve six months rigorous imprisonment for offence under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is the nephew of the victim lady, whereas petitioner no. 2 is the person alleged to have been identifier on the deed of gift which is alleged to be fabricated and forged document. The fact of the case is that the aunt of petitioner no.1 alleged that petitioner no.1 had got a gift deed registered purported to be executed by the victim lady in favour of petitioner no.1 by getting someone else to stand for the victim lady before the Sub-Registrar for getting the gift deed registered. Petitioner no. 2 is alleged to have identified the lady concerned. The complaint case was lodged by opposite party no. 2 who is alleged to have purchased the same land from the victim lady, i.e. aunt of petitioner no. 1. Learned counsel submits that petitioner no. 1 is a poor labourer working in Punjab and the aunt was staying with his family in the village and out of love and affection had gifted the piece of land to him. But later on it appears that opposite party no. 2 enticed and lured her 3 away to his house where she repudiated the earlier gift and executed a sale deed in his favour and thus opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint case against the petitioners which was later on sent to the police and F.I.R. lodged resulting in trial and conviction. Learned counsel submits that the original deed of gift was lost due to Kosi floods and thus could not be produced before the trial court for verification. He submits that the aunt might have had some second thought after the initial gift deed and due to the negative role of opposite party no. 2 she changed her mind and denied the gift and later on alleged to have executed the sale deed in favour of opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel finally submits that the petitioners are poor persons with hardly any source of income being labourers and in view of the fact that they have already undergone incarceration for four months and also the fact that they have spent substantial amount of money on the present litigation, the period already undergone by them should be treated as the sentence in the present case and the order may be modified to that extent. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other 4 hand, has supported the prosecution case and has opposed the present application. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order under challenge is modified to the extent that the period of incarceration shall be the period which has already been spent behind bar by the petitioners. The imposition of fine is also set aside. The revision application stands disposed of with the aforementioned modification in the order under challenge. mrl ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 468

Statute Text:
Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery for the purpose of cheating. Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.