JUDGMENT 1. - The short point involved in this case is whether this court can extend the period for depositing the fine which has been fixed as six months vide its order, dated November 2, 1982. This court, vide its judgment, dated November 2, 1982, while maintaining the conviction of the accused persons for various offences had reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment to one already undergone by each of the accused and in lieu of reduction of the substantive sentence each of them was imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/-. They were granted six month's time to deposit the amount of fine in the trial court. It was further mentioned in the judgment that in default of payment of fine each of the accused-appellant will suffer two years' imprisonment. Three of the accused-appellants did not deposit the fine in time and accused Badri had been, arrested on August 25, 1985 and sent to jail for serving out the imprisonment awarded in lieu of default of payment of fine. He moved an application before the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur on September 6, 1985 volunteering to deposit the amount of Rs. 1000/- but his application was dismissed on September 11, 1985, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to extend the period as the period of six months expired much before. The accused is still in jail and has approached this court praying that direction may be issued that he should be set free on his depositing the fine. 2. The learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the application has only referred to the period granted by this court and not the provision of law, it is purposeful to quote Sections 68 & 69 IPC which I reproduce as under: "Sec. 68. Imprisonment to terminate on payment of fine. The imprisonment which is imposed in default of payment of a fine shall terminate whenever that fine either paid or levied by process of law. Section 69.Termination of imprisonment on payment of proportional part of fine. If, before the expiration of the term of imprisonment fixed in default of payment, such a proportion of the fine be paid or levied that the term of imprisonment suffered in default of payment is not less than proportional to the part of the fine still unpaid, the imprisonment shall terminate". 3. If, before the expiration of the term of imprisonment fixed in default of payment, such a proportion of the fine be paid or levied that the term of imprisonment suffered in default of payment is not less than proportional to the part of the fine still unpaid, the imprisonment shall terminate". 3. A combined reading of the aforesaid sections make it clear that a person on whom sentence of fine has been imposed and if taken into custody for non-payment of the same, has to be released as soon as he deposits the fine. Section 68 IPC clearly mentions that the imprisonment which is imposed in default of payment of a fine terminates as and when the fine is either paid or levied by process of law. There is no ambiguity worth the same in s. 68 and it clearly means that the accused is free to pay the fine at any time he likes to pay and moment he pays it his imprisonment in default of payment of fine would stand automatically terminated. He there after cannot be detained and, therefore, even if a period has been fixed and the fine is not deposited within the period it is not a bar that be cannot pay the fine subsequently. It may be noted here that substantive sentence imposed on the accused was already reduced to one already undergone and, therefore he has served out the substantive sentence. He is only suffering imprisonment because he has not paid the fine. It could never he the intention of the legislature to have meant that accused if he is ready & willing to deposit the fine should still be detained, else it would amount to-double jeopardy. It is needless to say that the liberty of the accused cannot be put in jeopardy for non-payment of fine if he is ready and willing to deposit the same. 4. Learned Government Advocate submits that this would amount to review of the judgment under section 362 Cr. PC. I am afraid the position of law is quite clear inasmuch as section 362 Cr. PC has no application because the court is neither altering the judgment nor any order. Section 68 IPC is independent of any other section of Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the objection is frivolous. PC. I am afraid the position of law is quite clear inasmuch as section 362 Cr. PC has no application because the court is neither altering the judgment nor any order. Section 68 IPC is independent of any other section of Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the objection is frivolous. If any authority is desired to be quoted suffice it to refer Shambhu Dayal v. State, 1979 All LJ 822 wherein it has been held: "Where the accused did not pay the fine imposed on hint within the period allowed by court but deposited it subsequently and prayed for condonation of delay in depositing the same, the accused could not be taken in custody. Once the accused had paid the fine, the imprisonment which had been imposed upon him in default of payment of that fine, should have been taken to have terminated". 5. For the aforesaid reasons I accept this application and direct that the accused-petitioner shall be released forthwith in case he deposits the fine and if the other accused persons also deposit the fine they shall not be arrested.Application accepted. *******