Short Note : 1. The accused-applicant was convicted by trial Court under section 324, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs.100. The trial Court directed that in default of payment of fine the applicant shall undergo R.I. for a period of one month. The lower appellate Court confirmed the conviction, but in lieu of sentence of imprisonment, the applicant was released on probation of good conduct. The sentence of fine was maintained. The accused went in revision before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision so far as conviction was concerned. The other plea was that when the accused was released on probation of good conduct, the sentence of fine could not be confirmed. Held: Now the next point for consideration is that when the lower appellate Court thought it to be expedient to release the applicant on probation of good conduct, can it confirm the sentence of fine'? Under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 the relevant words are - the Court may, instead of sentencing him atonce to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond....'. Under section 53 of the Indian Penal Code "punishment" includes both imprisonment as well as fine. Therefore, when the Court below acted under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act in releasing the applicant on probation of good conduct, it ought not to, have awarded or confirmed the punishment of fine as well. The trial Court has directed that in default of payment of fine the applicant shall undergo R.I for a period of one month. In Ishar Dass v. The State of Punjab, (1972 Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 150) the Supreme Court has held that a sentence of fine also carries with it the consequence of imprisonment in case the accused fails to pay the fine and as the object of probation of Offenders Act is to avoid imprisonment of the person covered by the provisions of the Act the said object can be set at naught by imposing a sentence of fine which would necessarily entail imprisonment in case there is a default in payment of fine. 2. 2. When the lower Court exercised the discretion in releasing the applicant on probation of good conduct it ought not to have upheld the sentence of fine, particularly when the order of the trial Court directing the applicant to undergo sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine was not set aside. Rajeshwari Prasad v. Rambabu Gupta, AIR 1961 Patna 19, relied on. Revision partly allowed. 3. Sentence of fine set aside.