- (1.) V. P. Mathur, J. The revisionist was convicted on a charge under Sec tions 39/40 of the Electricity Act read with Section 379 I. P. C. and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment by Mr. G. K. Chaturvedi, Special Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offence, Budaun, vide, his order dated 8-3-1984. Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 1984 was preferred and it came up for hearing before Mr. K. G. Rastogi, the then Sessions Judge of Budaun, who upheld the conviction, but altered the sentence. The learned Judge granted to the applicant the benefit of the First Offender's Probation Act. But simultaneously he also directed him to further pay a fine of Rs. 500 providing rigorous imprisonment for the three mouths in default. Against this order, the present revision was filed, which has been admitted by this Court only on the question of sentence.
(2.) NO arguments have been advanced before me the merits of the case and since the facts of the matter stand established by two concurrent judgments of the two courts below, I do not propose to enter into the same. The revision is before me only to consider the question of sentence. Since the learned Counsel argues that lie has nothing to say against the appellate order granting benefit of the Probation Act and directing execution of the personal bonds, made by Mr. K. G. Rastogi, the then Sessions Judge of Moradabad on 27-11-1984, his entire argu ment is against the additional order through which the applicant has been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5jo (Rs. Five hundred) in addition and he contends that this is illegal. After hearing the learned Counsel or. both sides. I am in complete agreement with the learned counsel for the applicant-revisionist. Once the benefit of the Probation Act was extended and bonds for a fixed period were directed to be submitted, the matter should have ended there. The learned Sessions Judge went beyond his jurisdiction in further directing a line of Rs. 500 and m default of the payment of the same, the sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, this revision is allowed to this effect that the conviction of the revisionist for the offence punishable under Sections 39/40 of the Electricity Act road with Section 37, of the Indian Penal Code as made by the two Courts below shall stand and so also the order passed by the Sessions Judge of Budaun on 27-11-1984 to the extent that he has called upon the applicant to furnish bonds to keep peace and has fixed the amount of the bonds and has thus granted the benefit of the Probation Act to the applicant. The subsequent order calling upon the applicant to further pay a sum of Rs. 500 (Rs. Five hundred) by way of line and to undergo rigorous imprisonment in default of the payment of fine, shall stand quashed. Revision allowed. .;