JUDGMENT 1. - As these two appeals arise out of the same order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh and relate to the same occurrence, it would be proper to dispose them off by a common order. 2. In these two appeals learned counsel for the appellants did not advance any arguments regarding merits but confined his submissions on the question of sentence only. 3. According to the prosecution case, there was a dispute between the accused persons Gulab Singh, Sadul Singh and Sarvan Singh on the one hand and Jeet Singh on the other, in respect of some agricultural land. On July 10, 1974 at about 10.30. p. m. the three accused persons are said to have gone to the house of Jeet Singh carrying fire arms. Maghar Singh who was residing nearby, came out of his house and tried to pacify the accused persons and to persuade them to go back. But then accused Gulab Singh is said to have fired a shot, a pellet of which entered the neck of Maghar Singh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after a trial accepted the prosecution case and came to the conclusion that the three accused persons had gone to the place of occurrence with fire arms and that Gulab Singh had fired a shot, as a result of which Maghar Singh was injured and a lacerated wound with inverted bruised edges 1" x 3/4" x 1" was caused on the left side of the neck 3" below the left mandible, and that a large rounded, metallic pellet like shadow was detected on X-ray Examination in the soft tissues of his neck on the right side. He also came to the conclusion that the accused were carrying fire arms with intent to use the same for unlawful purpose and that Gulab Singh accused had kept a fire arm in his possession without a licence. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Gulab Singh accused-appellant for offences under section 324, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 1978 and sentenced him to undergo nine months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Gulab Singh accused-appellant for offences under section 324, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 1978 and sentenced him to undergo nine months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months under section 324, Indian Penal Code while in respect of each one of the offences under sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, Gulab Singh accused appellant was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 5. Sarwan Singh and Sadul Singh accused-appellants were convicted under Section 336, Indian Penal Code, and were awarded three month's rigorous imprisonment each and a fine of Rs. 250/- was imposed upon each one of them and in absence of payment of fine, they were required to undergo one month's further rigorous imprisonment. These accused appellants were also convicted under section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and were ordered to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 250/- each and in absence of payment of fine to undergo one month's further rigorous imprisonment. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record of the case. As have already observed above, learned counsel for the appellants did not contest the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the merits of the case and in my view rightly, as the offences for which the accused appellants have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge have been brought home to them on the basis of the evidence on record. The only argument of the learned counsel for the appellants before me is that the offences relate to an occurrence which took place in July 1974 and that there was no dispute between the accused appellants and Maghar Singh and that in the circumstances of the case, the substantive sentences awarded to the accused appellants may be reduced. The only argument of the learned counsel for the appellants before me is that the offences relate to an occurrence which took place in July 1974 and that there was no dispute between the accused appellants and Maghar Singh and that in the circumstances of the case, the substantive sentences awarded to the accused appellants may be reduced. Learned counsel also stated that if with a view to reduce the substantive sentence awarded to Gulab Singh, the Court thinks it necessary the fine imposed upon accused Gulab Singh may be raised from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/-. 7. There is no doubt that there was no enmity or even a dispute between the accused appellants and Maghar Singh. As a matter of fact Maghar Singh had only tried to pacify the accused persons according to the prosecution case. The incident had taken place in the year 1974 and it would be rather harsh to send the appellants to jail after a lapse of six years, particularly in view of the aforesaid facts. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case feel inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the accused appellants and reduce the substantive sentences awarded to each one of the three accused persons to that already undergone by him. The sentence of fine awarded to Gulab Singh accused appellant is raised from Rs 500/ to Rs. 1000/-. and it is on this basis that tire substantive sentence awarded to Gulab Singh is reduced to that already undergone by him in respect of the offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, learned counsel for appellant Gulab Singh has already expressed willingness in this respect. In default of payment of fine he will have to undergone three month's rigorous imprisonment. So far the offences under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act are concerned the substantive sentence awarded to Gulab Singh accused appellant is reduced to that already under gone by him, but the sentence of fine of Rs. 250/, on each count, is maintained and in default of payment of fine he will have to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. 8. In respect of Sarwan Singh and Sadul Singh appellants the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants for reduction of sentence was not opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 250/, on each count, is maintained and in default of payment of fine he will have to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. 8. In respect of Sarwan Singh and Sadul Singh appellants the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants for reduction of sentence was not opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Their substantive sentences, in respect of offences under section 336, Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act are reduced to that already undergone by them, but the sentences of fine of Rs. 250/- imposed on each one of them in respect of each of the aforesaid offences is maintained. The said accused appellants will have to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences in default of payment of fine, 9. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh dated May 13, 1976 is modified. While the conviction of all the accused appellants in respect of all the offences is maintained yet the sentence awarded to each one of them for each one of the offences is reduced to that already undergone, but the sentence of fine for each offence is maintained except that in case of Gulab Singh accused the amount of fine in respect of the offence under section 324, Indian Penal Code is raised from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/-, with the consent of the learned counsel for the accused. The accused appellants are allowed one month's time to deposit the amount of fine, but on their failure to do so they will have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period indicated above. Sd/- Dwarka Prasad, J.Appeals partly allowed. *******