BHAGWATI PRASAD, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the factum of conviction.
(2.) THE Trial Court convicted the accused petitioner Jagtar Singh under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of undergo 15 days further rigorous imprisonment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused had already served out sentence to the extent of about six months and, in these circumstance instead of asking the petitioner to serve out the remaining sentence, he be released on the sentence already gone by him and fine may be enhanced. He proposes that a sum of Rs. 5000/- may be ordered to be paid as fine.
(3.) LOOKING to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the accused petitioner was sentenced in the year 1999 and the incident is of the year 1995 and the revision is being heard in the year 2000 coupled with the fact that the accused had already served out six months sentence, this Court feels persuaded that instead of maintaining the sentence of imprisonment of the accused petitioner he be saddled with financial liability and the fine should be ordered to be enhanced. Therefore, it is ordered that the accused petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs. 5000/- with the Trial Court. In case the amount is not deposited, the accused petitioner shall undergo the sentences recorded against him by the learned Trial Court. If the amount is paid then the sentence of imprisonment shall stand converted into that of already undergone with enhanced fine.;