Summarize the following court judgment. minal Appeal No. 830 of 1985. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.85 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl. Revision No. 1937 of 1983. M.S. Gujral	 A.K. Srivastava and Serva Mitter for the Appellant. R.C. Verma and A.S. Pundit.for the Respondent. The appellant	 was convicted under Sections 120 B	 419	 420	 468	 and 471 of the Penal Code. lie was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonments for different periods under the aforesaid Sections. The appeal filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed by the learned additional Sessions Judge	 Ghaziabad. The High Court	 on revision application being filed on behalf of the appellant set aside his conviction under Section 120 B	 but the conviction and sentence under other Sections mentioned above passed by the trial Court were affirmed. According to the prosecution case	 the appellant	 established a firm by the name of Seemak Industrial Corporation at Ghaziabad. The account in the bank was opened in the name of one Vijai Kumar and the aforesaid Industrial Corporation was registered in the Sales Tax Department. The appellant applied for loan before the U.P. Small Industries Corporation and got a sum of Rs. 39	352.50	 in the name of Seemak Industrial Corporation. Later it was discovered that the aforesaid Seemak Industrial Corporation	 was a fake concern and the appellant had cheated	 even the U.P. Small Industries Corporation	 in respect of the amount advanced by them. The Trial Court	 the Appellate Court as well as the High Court have gone into details of the materials on record for purpose of holding	 that the charges framed against the appellant had been established and as such there was no occasion to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed against him. So far the present appeal is concerned	 leave was granted as early as in the year 1985 by this Court	 but it has been listed for hearing after about 8 years. The learned Counsel. appearing for the appellant	 after some arguments on merit confined his submissions to the question of sentence only. lie pointed out that offences aforesaid had been committed by the appellant	 as early as in the year 1973	 more than 20 years from now and as such a compassionate view should be taken of the whole matter especially when the amount in respect of which the offences are alleged to have been committed is not excessive. He pointed out that the appellant has remained in jail for some time	 in pursuance of the order of conviction and sentence and as such he need not be sent to jail again. An affidavit detailing the mitigating circumstances has also been filed by the appellant before us. Taking all facts and circumstances into consideration	 by our order dated 26th April	 1993 we directed the appellant to first deposit an amount of Rs. 40	000 (the loan amount) with the U.P. Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Pursuant to that order Rs. 40.000 has been deposited with the U.P. Small Industries Corporation Ltd.	 on 4 5 1993 and original receipt granted by the Manager of the said Corporation was produced before us. The zerox copy	 of the said original receipt has been kept on record and the original returned to the learned counsel for the appellant. An affidavit has also been filed on behalf 'of the appellant stating about 902 the aforesaid deposit. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case while maintaining the conviction of the appellant	 we reduce the sentence of imprisonment under different Sections mentioned above to the period already undergone by him. The appellant	 shall however pay a fine of Rs. 2	000 and in default of payment thereof	 he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The appeal is allowed in part. The deposit of Rs. 40	000 made by the appellant with the U.P. Small Industries Corporation Ltd.	 shall be adjusted towards the amount advanced by the said Corporation to the appellant. The Corporation shall of course be at liberty to take steps for realisation of any further sum. which may be due. against the appellant. U.R. Appeal partly allowed.

The appellant was charged with cheating the U.P. Industrial Corporation of Rs. 39	352.50 by registering a take concern	 and taking in its name. Three courts concurrently found the charges against him established. On the question of sentence	 it was contended that more than 20 % cars had elapsed; the amount involved was not excessive and other mitigating circumstances were placed (in the record. Partly allowing the appeal	 this Court HELD:1. The appellant had deposited Rs. 40	000/ (the loan amount) as directed. (901 G) 2. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case	 conviction maintained but sentence of imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone	 and a fine of Rs. 2	000/ 	 or one month R.I. in lieu thereof. (902 B)