B. K. Sharma, J. - (1.) SRI D. N. Wall Advocate appears on behalf of the applicant-revisionist and learned Addl. Government Advocate appears on behalf of the State.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. In this case the accused-revisionist was found in possession of a country made pistol and a live cartridge on 25.4.1978. He was sentenced with six months R.I. for the offence under Section 25 (a) of the Arms Act by the learned Ilnd Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Meerut. vide his order dated 24.4.1982 in Criminal Case No. 381 of 1979. The criminal appeal No. 83 of 1982 preferred against the same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge Meerut vide his order dated 7.6.1982. Learned counsel for the accused-revisionist has not challenged before me the conviction of the revisionist. He has only argued on the point of sentence. His argument is that the matter related to the year 1978 and that the revisionist has already suffered imprisonment for more than two and half months because his criminal appeal was dismissed cm 7.6.1982 by the Sessions Judge, Meerut and he was taken into custody forthwith and thereafter he was granted bail by this Court in this revision vide order dated 25.8.1982. He further argued that if fine is imposed in lieu of sentence of imprisonment reduced it will not be considered as enhancement of the sentence. He has pointed out that in the Arms Act, 1959 as it stood in the year 1978. there was no minimum period of imprisonment provided as punishment under Section 25 of the Act. Considering the date of the occurrence, period of pendency of this revision and the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused revisionist in this case the prayer of the learned counsel for the revisionist may be properly accepted.
(3.) IN the result, the revision is dismissed. The conviction of the accused- revisionist under Section 25 of the Arms Act is maintained. However, his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of imprisonment already suffered by him so far but a sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000 is imposed on him in lieu of the period of imprisonment reduced. The: amount of fine shall be paid by the accused revisionist within a period of three months from today. IN default of payment of fine, the accused-revisionist shall be taken into custody and he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Sessions Judge, Meerut, for information and compliance. The compliance report shall be submitted to this Court within four months from today.;