Mohd. Shamim ( 1 ) SINCE a very short point is involved I proceed to hear anddecide this matter. ( 2 ) THIS revision petition is directed against an order dated 23/07/1994 passedby the learned Additional cession Judge. ( 3 ) THE only point involved in the present revision petition is as to whether thelearned Additional Session Judge was competent to direct the petitioner toundergo Rl for a period of 2 years 5 months and 3 weeks in default of paymentof fine which was Rs. 12,50,000. 00 imposed on the petitioner. Learned Counsel forthe petitioner Mr. Jitender Sethi has contended that the Court is no competent todirect an accused to undergo more than I /4th of the term of imprisonment whichis the maximum fixed for the offence committed by a particular accused. According to the learned Counsel, in the instant case the petitioner could not havebeen punished with an imprisonment for more than 7 years. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, for the reasons best known to him, directed thepetitioner to undergo Rl for 2 years 5 months and 3 weeks in default of paymentof fine, which was obviously wrong. According to him, the maximum term ofimprisonment is 7 years. Thus, the petitioner could have been sentenced toundergo Rl for 21 months in default of payment of fine. The petitioner, accordingto him, has already undergone 7 months of imprisonment in default of paymentof fine besides 3 years 7 months Rl which he had already undergone. The learnedcounsel thus wants that the term of imprisonment in default of payment of finebe reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner as he is aforeign national and is not in a position to pay the fine. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents have urged to the contrary. According to them, the petitioner was found inpossession of40kgs. ofgold. Thus, the instant case is not a case of showing any leniency to the petitioner. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learnedcounsel for the respondents at sufficient length and have very carefully examinedthe facts of the present case and have given my anxious thoughts thereto. ( 6 ) IT is manifest from above that the learned Additional Sessions Judge couldnot have sentenced the petitioner to undergo Rl for more than 21 months indefaultof payment of fine vide Section 65 of Indian Penal Code. ( 6 ) IT is manifest from above that the learned Additional Sessions Judge couldnot have sentenced the petitioner to undergo Rl for more than 21 months indefaultof payment of fine vide Section 65 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner hasalready depose 7 months at imprisonment out of the said sentence awarded to himbesides the term of imprisonment of 3 years 7 months already undergone by him. In this way, the petitioner has already undergone Rl for a period of 4 years 2months. The petitioner is admittedly a foreigner. Thus, he is not in a position to paythe fine imposed on him which is to the tune of Rs. 12,50,000. 00 though the learnedmagistrate imposed a fine of Rs. 5 lacs only. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the above facts and circumstances I think it expedient inthe interest awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the term ofimprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. The petitioner is alleged tohave been found inpossession of 4100$ and 2700 Iranian Rials. The said amountshall stand forfeited to the State. The revision, petition is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner be releasedforthwith in case he is not required if any other case.