GIRRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri P. N. Mishra, learned counsel for appli cant/appellant and Sri Sayed Mahmood, learned A. G. A. for the State.

(2.) BY the judgment and order dated 29-9-97, the appeal was partly allowed and the sentence awarded was modified to the extent of period of imprisonment already undergone and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine R. I. for one year. The appellant was granted one month's time to deposit the amount of fine failing which he may be arrested to serve out the sentence awarded to him. The appellant could not deposit the amount of fine within the stipulated time for reasons stated in the affidavit filed with the appli cation for extension of time. BY the present application a prayer is made to grant three weeks time to deposit the amount of fine.

(3.) FOR the reason stated in the affi davit I am satisfied that the appellant was prevented from depositing the amount of fine for the reasons beyond his control. While dismissing the appeal modification in the order of sentence was made on the ground that after lapse of 20 years no useful purpose will be served by sending the appellant to jail. The appellant was to serve out the sentence in default of pay ment of fine. Substantive sentence awarded was payment of fine and in de fault of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for one year. The legal position appears to be that as soon as the appellant or the person convicted deposits the amount of fine im posed by the Court, he is entitled to be released since he would be undergoing imprisonment in lieu of default of payment of fine. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in my view, the time for deposit of fine can be extended.