- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A. G. A. for State.
(2.) THE trial Court convicted revisionists Jagjit Singh and Surjit Singh under section 411, IPC for being in posses sion of a stolen car knowing or having reasons to believe it to be a stolen property. Appeal preferred by the revisionist was partly allowed. THEir conviction under sec tion 411, IPC was maintained. Sentence of imprisonment was reduced to one year and sentence of fine was reduced to Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for six months. The present revision is pressed on the question of sentence only. It is con tended that the incident is said to have oc curred in the year 1974 and trial continued for about 10 years and thereafter the appeal was decided in the year 1984. The revisionists were in jail for sometime in the trial Court and also for some time after dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Court. It is further contended that there is no other conviction to the credit of the revisionists and no useful purpose shall be served by sending the revisionists to jail after a lapse of 23. years. The learned AG. A. contends that the amount of fine may be enhanced. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in my view sen tence of imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 1500 each would meet the ends of justice. The revision is partly al lowed. Conviction of the revisionists under section 411, IPC is maintained. They are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone and pay a fine of Rs. 1500 (fifteen hundred) each and in default of payment of fine to undergo im prisonment for one month. The amount of fine may be deposited within six weeks from today. A certified copy of this order shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the revisionists within 3 days on payment of usual charges. Revision partly allowed. .;