JUDGMENT : A.K. Sarkar, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court at Calcutta. The appellants were convicted under Section 120B of the Penal Code, read with Section 5 of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The conviction was by the High Court after an acquittal by the Magistrate whose court was the court of first instance. 2. When this Court granted leave to the appellants to appeal, it limited such leave only to the question of sentence. When the appeal came up for hearing, Mr. B. Sen, learned Counsel for the appellants, wanted to contend first that it was open to us, sitting as a Bench, if we thought it a fit case, to enlarge the scope of the leave earlier granted and let him argue the case on the basis that conviction itself could not be supported. On that matter, we felt some difficulty and suggested that if he was going to argue that, we would like to send the case to a bigger Bench. Mr. Sen then abandoned that point. 3. The appellants had also filed an application for extending the scope of the leave granted. It was put to Mr. Sen that that application could be an application in the nature of review only. But as there was no certificate as required by the Rules, and it may be that the other conditions of the Rules were not satisfied, we could not treat it as such. Furthermore, that application had to be made to the learned Judge who granted special leave, and not to this Bench. Mr. Sen having considered the position abandoned that point also. 4. The only question that he argued in this appeal was the question of sentence to which the leave had been limited. It is quite clear, and this is conceded by Mr. S.G. Patwardhan, appearing for the respondent, that the sentence which the High Court passed, and which was a fine of Rs. 10,000/- on the first appellant and of Rs. 5,000/- on the second appellant, was not a sentence which the Magistrate could pass. We have already held in Jagat Bahadur Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh - Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1963, decided on 30-11-1965, that an appellate court's power regarding sentence is limited to the power provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure for the trial court. Mr. We have already held in Jagat Bahadur Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh - Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1963, decided on 30-11-1965, that an appellate court's power regarding sentence is limited to the power provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure for the trial court. Mr. Patwardhan concedes that the Magistrate could not in this case impose a fine in excess of Rs. 2,000/- on each accused. He, however, points out that the Magistrate could impose a sentence of imprisonment. Now, in this view of the matter and in view of our decision in the case of Jagat Bahadur Singh, the sentence of fine imposed by the High Court cannot be maintained. We, accordingly, reduce it to the maximum amount which the Magistrate could impose, that is to say, there will be a fine of Rs. 2,000/- on each of the appellants. 5. Mr. Patwardhan contended that in this case the appellants had made very large profits and that was the reason why the High Court had imposed a heavy fine. He said that as that sentence cannot be supported in law and as this is a fit case in which the offenders should be duly punished, the proper course for us would be to send the case back to the High Court and ask it to consider if it would impose a sentence of imprisonment upto the limit which the Magistrate could impose. We see no justification for doing that. We do not think that the amount of the profit which the transaction, which constituted the offence, produced, should necessarily be accepted as a measure of the criminality or as a guide to fix the sentence to be imposed. The point of view should be whether looking at the object of the Act, the conduct of the appellants has been such as to cause a serious breach of it so as to require a deterrent sentence. However, as we are not accepting Mr. Patwardhan's submission, we need not discuss this matter further. 6. The only order that we, therefore, pass in this appeal, is that the sentence of fine on the appellants is reduced to Rs. 2,000/- each. We are told by Mr. Sen that the appellants have already paid the fine which the High Court imposed on them. So, it is unnecessary to provide for a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. 2,000/- each. We are told by Mr. Sen that the appellants have already paid the fine which the High Court imposed on them. So, it is unnecessary to provide for a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. They will be entitled to the refund of the amount paid by them after deduction of the fine that we have imposed.