JUDGMENT 1. - Notice of this revision petition has been given to the Public Prosecutor and arguments have been heard. 2. The learned Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction of the accused petitioner u/s 14 of the Foreigners Act to six months rigorous imprisonment and u/s 6 of the Passport entry into India, Rules to three months rigorous imprisonment, in default of payment of fine under each of the count which was Rs. 100/- it was ordered that the accused shall suffer 15 days more imprisonment. 3. It is alleged that the accused was seen entering India from Pakistan at India Pakistan Border on May 15, 1975. He was apprehended by the part of The Border Security Force which was camped there. It was given out that the accused was Rajput by caste and belonged to Refugee camp Huron-ka-tala. More than 20 bushirts and a wrist watch were recovered from his possession. The accused was prosecuted. The plea of the accused was that he had not entered in India from Pakistan but he was residing in the refugee camp, Huron-ka-tala. He refused to hand over the wrist watch to Major Sher Singh and that is why he was falsely implicated. In fact he was asked to alight from the bus and was arrested. The accused did not examine any witness in this defence. The learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced accused as aforesaid and appeal under section 6 of the Passport Act was modified and the rest was upheld. 4. The contention of Mr. Singhvi, the learned advocate is that the accused petitioner who was a refugee from Pakistan and is Rajput by caste. He entered India as a result of Indo-Pak War 1971 and has been conferred Indian citizenship. In support of his contention Mr. Singhvi has produced a certificate of registration dated July 7, 1978 from which it appears that accused petitioner Khet Singh son of Ransingh aged 35 years, a refugee residing in Huron-ka-tala refugee camp has bees conferred Indian Citizenship under section 5(1) (a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. In view of this, I am of the opinion that a lenient view of the sentence is called for, The accused petitioner has already undergone 32 days imprisonment. In view of this, I am of the opinion that a lenient view of the sentence is called for, The accused petitioner has already undergone 32 days imprisonment. It appears from the note on the order sheet dated 9.5.75 that the accused had undergone 15 days imprisonment and he had further undergone 17 days imprisonment after the decision of the Sessions Judge and as such I am of the opinion that the sentence undergone by the accused and the payment of fine of Rs. 100/- under section 14 of the Foreigners Act and the sentence of imprisonment already undergone under rule 6 of the Passport entry into India Rules shall meet the ends of justice. In case the accused does not pay Rs. 100/- fine, he shall further undergo 15 days imprisonment.Revision partly allowed. *******