NAMZA NOZOGH Vs. B R NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since a very short point is involved I proceed to hear anddecide this matter.

(2.) This revision petition is directed against an order dated 23/07/1994 passedby the learned Additional cession Judge.

(3.) The only point involved in the present revision petition is as to whether thelearned Additional Session Judge was competent to direct the petitioner toundergo Rl for a period of 2 years 5 months and 3 weeks in default of paymentof fine which was Rs.12,50,000.00 imposed on the petitioner. Learned Counsel forthe petitioner Mr.Jitender Sethi has contended that the Court is no competent todirect an accused to undergo more than I /4th of the term of imprisonment whichis the maximum fixed for the offence committed by a particular accused.According to the learned Counsel, in the instant case the petitioner could not havebeen punished with an imprisonment for more than 7 years. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, for the reasons best known to him, directed thepetitioner to undergo Rl for 2 years 5 months and 3 weeks in default of paymentof fine, which was obviously wrong. According to him, the maximum term ofimprisonment is 7 years. Thus, the petitioner could have been sentenced toundergo Rl for 21 months in default of payment of fine. The petitioner, accordingto him, has already undergone 7 months of imprisonment in default of paymentof fine besides 3 years 7 months Rl which he had already undergone. The learnedCounsel thus wants that the term of imprisonment in default of payment of finebe reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner as he is aforeign national and is not in a position to pay the fine.