DEEPAK ROSHAN,J. - (1.) All these applications arises out of the common judgment dated 13.08.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Appeal No.194 of 2012 and Cr. Appeal No.195 of 2012, whereby both the appeals were dismissed and the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.08.2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Bokaro in G.R. No.205/2001, whereby Govind Ram Agarwal (petitioner in Cr. Revision No.945 of 2013), Md. Kayum Sekh @ S.M. Kayum (petitioner in Cr. Revision No.1023 of 2013) and Istaque Khan (petitioner in Cr. Revision No.843 of 2014), have been convicted for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo RI for 1- 1/2 years, has been affirmed, and as such all these applications are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) At the outset the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not intend to press these applications on merit rather he confines his argument on the question of sentence only. He further submits that Govind Ram Agarwal (petitioner in Cr. Revision No.945 of 2013) is more than 80 years old as such sending him back to prison will not suffice any useful purpose. He further submits that Md. Kayum Sekh @ S.M. Kayum (petitioner in Cr. Revision No.1023 of 2013) and Istaque Khan (petitioner in Cr. Revision No.843 of 2014) are aged about 45 years and both of them are living with their families and they are only bread earners for their families as such sending them back to prison will not serve any fruitful purpose as such all the petitioners are entitled for some relief by this Court. He further submits that there is no criminal antecedent of these petitioners and they are not habitual offenders and they have been convicted only in this case as such the sentence may be modified for the period already undergone. He further submits that Govind Ram Agarwal (petitioner in Cr. Revision No.945 of 2013) remained in custody for 66 days, Md. Kayum Sekh @ S.M. Kayum (petitioner in Cr. Revision No.1023 of 2013) remained in custody for 116 days and Istaque Khan (petitioner in Cr. Revision No.843 of 2014) remained in custody for 319 days.
(3.) Per contra, the learned PP appearing for the State though supports the impugned orders, however, did not dispute the fact that the petitioners are the first offenders and no criminal antecedent as against them is on record.;