G. S. N. TRIPATHI, J. This revision has been directed against the concurrent find ing of both the courts below holding the revisionist guilty on a charge under Section 420 IPC. 2. The learned IIIrd Addl. Chief Judi cial Magistrate, Meerut while convicting the accused, sentenced him to a 4 months R. I. on the charge under Section 420 IPC and directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as fine. On failure to pay the fine, one months additional R. I. had to be undergone by the accused, vide the order dated 11. 11. 94, passed in Criminal Case No. 4744 of 1994, Ami Chand vs. Raje and others. 3. Aggrieved against the order, the revisionist accused filed a Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1994, before the learned Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut, who by his order dated 8. 10. 96, maintained the conviction. However, he converted the sentence of 4 months R. I. as ordered by the learned Addl. C. J. M. , by ordering that the appellant shall undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court. But the sentence of fine was en hanced to Rs. 10,000/ -. On failure to pay the fine, one months additional R. I. was awarded. A sum of Rs. 9,000/- out of this fine was ordered to be paid to the com plainant Amichand. 4. Aggrieved against these orders passed by the courts below, the present revision has been filed. 5. This revision has been admitted only on the point of sentence. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that under Sec tion 386 Cr. P. C, the appellate court in an appeal from conviction can:- (h ). (i ). . . (ii ). (iii) with or without altering the findi ng, alter the nature or the extent, or the nat ure and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same. (emphasis provided) The learned counsel has urged that virtually the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by his ap pellate order has enhanced the sentence. 7. 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties. I find that there is absolutely no force in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed. 8. The case proved against the accused is that he has deceived the complainant Amichand by receiving a Bank Draft in a sum of Rs. 10. 000/- and misappropriated the same. 7. 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties. I find that there is absolutely no force in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed. 8. The case proved against the accused is that he has deceived the complainant Amichand by receiving a Bank Draft in a sum of Rs. 10. 000/- and misappropriated the same. Both the courts have thus recorded a finding that the revisionist is guilty of the charge under Section 420 IPC and have awarded different sentences as noted above. The learned counsel has rightly and justly conceded in teeth of these findings of fact resulting into the conviction of the accused at the hands of both the courts below. Now the question is whether the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge amounts to enhancement of the sentence. In my view, it is not. 9. Had the conviction as ordered by the learned Magistrate been maintained, the ac cused would have been forced to undergo 4 months R. I. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has saved him from going to jail. A persons liberty is many times more impor tant than the fine in a sum of rupees, what soever they may be. Human liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Con stitution, is of paramount importance. No amount of monetary compensation can ade quately compensate the victim. That is why invariably the learned counsel, in all cases, pray that the fine may be enhanced. But the incarceration in jail should be avoided. The courts normally accede to such requests, of course, for a poor man, money will be more important and undergoing sentence will be comparatively easier for him to bear than the payment of money itself, in the shape of fine. But that is a question of fact. That has not been either shown or proved in the present case. That is why, I think that by ordering the accused to undergo imprisonment Only upto rising of that court (which is nothing but a symbol of imprisonment but in actuality, it is not an imprisonment at all), the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has ac cordingly saved the accused from undergo ing imprisonment for 4 months. But he has compensated the same by enhancing the sentence of fine, which is not a substantive sentence in itself as it has been awarded in lieu of imprisonment. Sessions Judge has ac cordingly saved the accused from undergo ing imprisonment for 4 months. But he has compensated the same by enhancing the sentence of fine, which is not a substantive sentence in itself as it has been awarded in lieu of imprisonment. Hence, it cannot be said that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has enhanced the sentence, rather, he has converted the sentence of imprisonment into a sentence of fine. The Sessions Judge and the High Court have unlimited jurisdic tion to pass orders, as they deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and the Sessions Judge has, undoubtedly, power to award fine of Rs. 10,000/- as done by him. Here, it will not be considered that the learned Magistrate could not award Rs. 10,000/-, as his jurisdiction is limited to Rs. 5. 000/- under Section 29 (2) Cr. P. C. In fact, the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate have the same powers. Therefore, there is no limit to the amount of fine, which can be awarded by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate as clarified in Section 29 (1) Cr. P. C. as in Section 29 (2) Cr. P. C, the jurisdiction of ordinary Magistrate 1st Class has been defined with regard to fine, which should not exceed Rs. 5,000/ -. But as regards the jurisdiction of the C. J. M. , there is no limita tion on the point of fine. 10. Apart from that, I find that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not en hanced the sentence. He has simply con verted the sentence of imprisonment into a sentence of fine, hence the question of any illegality, whatsoever, as alleged by the learned counsel does not arise. 11. In this background, the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel, reported in the case of Mahesh Chandra, v. State (1984 (2), Crl. L. J. , page 633, does not apply. In that case, before the High Court, the Magistrate convicted. the appellants under Sections 9 and 10 of the Prize Com panies Act, 1955 and sentenced the accused to a fine of Rs. 1. 000/ -. The conviction was maintained in appeal. But the learned Ses sions Judge reduced the fine to Rs. 500/-under Section 9, read with Section 4 of the Act and Rs. 100/- under Section 11 of the Act. 1. 000/ -. The conviction was maintained in appeal. But the learned Ses sions Judge reduced the fine to Rs. 500/-under Section 9, read with Section 4 of the Act and Rs. 100/- under Section 11 of the Act. In case of non- payment of fine, the accused were ordered to undergo three months R. I. each, whereas, the learned Magistrate had awarded only 20 days R. I. in case of non- payment of fine. Thus in this case the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, has, admittedly enhanced the fine. But that was not a case of conversion of fine into a sen tence of imprisonment or vice-versa. The learned Magistrate had provided only 20 days R. I. , whereas, the learned Sessions Judge awarded 3 months imprisonment. So that was definitely a case of different nature. That does not help the revisionist. 12. After having considered the argu ments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I find that this revision has ab solutely no force and it is accordingly dis missed. Revision dismissed. .