J. G. CHITRE, J. ( 1 ) -THE small point is to be decided in this revision petition and therefore on the request of counsel appearing for the litigating parties this revision petition is being decided finally at this stage. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has been convicted by Chief Judicial Magistrate. Mandsaor for offence punishable under S. 409 IPC for alleged embezzlement of amount to the tune of Rs. 31,240=70 ps. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs 30,000/- as learned Magistrate found him guilty for offence u/s. 409 IPC. The petitioner preferred an appeal in the Sessions Court. Mandsaor challenging the correctness propriety and legality of that order of conviction and sentence. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner moved an application for suspension of sentence. Learned 3rd A. S. J. Mandsaor suspended the. substantive sentence; however he refused to suspend the sentence of fine and that order has been assailed by the petitioner in this revision petition. ( 3 ) SHRI Jaisingh counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been suspended since 1981 and he is surviving on subsistence allowance alongwith his family members who are four in number. He further submitted that the children of the petitioner are grown up and they are studying and therefore, it is very difficult for the petitioner and impossible for him to deposit the amount of Rs. 30,000/- which has been directed to be deposited by him as fine. He submitted that when 3rd A. S. J. Mandsaor was pleased to suspend the substantive sentence he could have suspended the sentence of fine also. It is his prayer that the sentence of fine inflicted on the petitioner by the trial court be also suspended in the interest of justice keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is sorviving on subsistence allowance after his suspension. ( 4 ) SHRI Prakash Verma, Dy. G. A. appearing for respondent submitted that it was the discretion of the 3rd A. S. J. Mandsaor whether to suspend the sentence of fine or not. He further submitted that the learned 3rd A. S. J. did not suspend that sentence and. therefore this revision petition be dismissed. ( 4 ) SHRI Prakash Verma, Dy. G. A. appearing for respondent submitted that it was the discretion of the 3rd A. S. J. Mandsaor whether to suspend the sentence of fine or not. He further submitted that the learned 3rd A. S. J. did not suspend that sentence and. therefore this revision petition be dismissed. ( 5 ) S. 389 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code for convenience) provides that- (1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person the Appellate Court may for reasons to be recorded by it in writing order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also if he is in confinement that he be released on bail, or on his own bond. (2) The power conferred by this section un an Appellate Court may be exercised also by the High Court in the case of an appeal by a convicted person to a court subordinate thereto. S. 397 of the Code provides that The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferrior criminal court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purposes of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of, such inferrior court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in cunfinement, that he be released on bail or un his own bund pending the examination of the record. ( 6 ) THUS, the purpose and spirit conveyed by the provisions of law indicated above will have to be understood an a given effect in its correct spirit. While making a submission on the point of suspension of sentence, Shri Prakash Verma, Dy. G. A. has submitted that the suspension of sentence is a matter peortaining to the field of 'discretion'. True, it is the discretion of the appellate court who suspend the sentence of a convict who has appealed to the appellate court or who has preferred a revision in the revisional court. Whether to suspend the sentence or not that discretiont has to be used in just, proper and reasonable way. True, it is the discretion of the appellate court who suspend the sentence of a convict who has appealed to the appellate court or who has preferred a revision in the revisional court. Whether to suspend the sentence or not that discretiont has to be used in just, proper and reasonable way. Cardazo has said nicely about discretion used by the judget in his thesis submitted to. Yale University which can be quoted in his words in the interest of justice: Cardazo said The Judge, even when he is free, is still-nut wholly free. He is nut to innovate at pleasure. He is nut a knight errant roaming at will inpursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration, from consecreated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to the primordial necessity of order in the social life. Wide enough in. all conscience is the field of discretion that remains. ( 7 ) THE discretion has to be used always with a circumspective approach of the facts and circumstances of each and every case, but however that is to be consistent with traditions, methodized analogy and disciplined system. That should be also consistent with consecrated principles. It should look reasonably in approach. ( 8 ) THE word sentence which has been used in Ss. 389 and 397 of the Code means substantive sentence as well as the sentence of fine. The Code has provided those two kinds of sentence for various offences. For some offences the accused has to be sentenced with substantive sentence as well as with sentence of fine. For some offences the accused can be sentenced with sentence of fine alone. For giving such option in some provisions the word punishment has been used. In such case the accused can be sentenced with substantive sentence or the sentence of fine, by the court after keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the way in which the offence has been committed and other extenuating circumstances. That has to be done by using the "discretion". 5. In such case the accused can be sentenced with substantive sentence or the sentence of fine, by the court after keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the way in which the offence has been committed and other extenuating circumstances. That has to be done by using the "discretion". 5. 53 of IPC defines "punishment" as - The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are Firstly Death Secondly Imprisonment for life Fourthly Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions namely (1) Rigorous that is, with hard lbour: (2) Simple Fifthly Forfeiture of property Sixthly Fine S. 60 provides - That the sentence may be (in certain cases of imprisonment) wholly or partly rigorous or simple. Sec. 64 provides for a sentence of imprisonment for lion-payment of fine. ( 9 ) ALL this has been embodied in Chapter 3rd of IPC which is dealing with punishment. On account of similarality between sentence of imprisonment and sentence of fine, these provisions have been clubbed together. Sec. 29 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 provides that The Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate may pass any sentence authorised by law except a sentence of death or of imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years. Sec. 29 (2) provides. The Court of a Magistrate of the first class may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or of fine not exceeding five thousand rupees, or of both. Sub-Sec. (3) of S. 29 provides:the Court of a Magistrate of the second class may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or of fine not exceeding one thousand rupees, or of both. Sec. 30 provides- (1) The court of a Magistrate may award such term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine as is authorised by law. Here also Chapter 3 is dealing with the powers of the various courts that is to say the High Court. court of Sessions or courts of A. S. J. , C. J. M. , J. M. F. C. , J. M. lind Class. Here also Chapter 3 is dealing with the powers of the various courts that is to say the High Court. court of Sessions or courts of A. S. J. , C. J. M. , J. M. F. C. , J. M. lind Class. ( 10 ) THUS, it is quite clear from the way in which the above said provisions are speaking about sentence that the sentence of imprisonment and sentence of fine are included in a comprehensive term sentence which has been used in relevant provisions of law. Therefore, there is no doubt that the word sentencet which has been used in provisions of Ss. 389 and 397 of the Code are covering in its sweeping clasp both the substantive sentence as well as sentence of fine. ( 11 ) THE Appellate Court may use the words sentence in passing the order of suspension of sentence indicating the suspension of both the sentences of imprisonment as well as that of fine. If at all the appellate court finds it necessary not to suspend the sentence of fine, it would generally indicate that way specially in its order. Once the sentence has been suspended it means the suspension of substantive sentence as well as sentence of fine unless it is specially indicated, otherwise. ( 12 ) IN the present matter when the learned A. S. J. thought it proper to suspend the sentence of imprisonment, he impliedly was of the opinion that the facts and circumstances of the present case were permitting him to suspend the substantive sentence. Needless to point out that the substantive sentence is the harder sentence than the sentence of payment of fine. When the substantive sentence would be suspended in the present case there was no reason for the A. S. J.- the lower appellate court to suspend the sentence of fine also. Once the A. S. J. exercises the discretion of suspending the substantive sentence, there was no reason for not, using that discretion in suspending the sentence of fine also. A discretion has to be used in consonance with tradition the accepted principles of practice methodised by convention. It was necessary for the learned A. S. J. to keep it in mind that the present applicant was a suspended servant. A discretion has to be used in consonance with tradition the accepted principles of practice methodised by convention. It was necessary for the learned A. S. J. to keep it in mind that the present applicant was a suspended servant. He was meeting the two ends of his house-hold necessities on meagre amount of subsistence allowance which happens to be always sufficient enough to keep the soul and body of such public servant and family members alive in these days of escalating prices. It is next to impossible for such a person to take out the amount of Rs. 30,000/- for depositing it as payment of fine in the court. Either he will have to go for a loan or succumb himself to the mercy of his relatives or the friends. The practical experience tells that very few persons go to the help of such suspended public servants so far as meters of money are concerned. Denying him the suspension of sentence of fine when the substantive sentence has been suspended, would be nothing but denying him the fruits of concession provided by law subjected to the judicial discretion of the court. It would be definitely putting such public servant and his family members to hardship and humiliation. The lower courts of appeals should not do so unless there are significant grounds to deny such concession to the person whose appeal has been admitted for final hearing and whose substantive sentence has been suspended. ( 13 ) IN the present case the applicant is a suspended government servant a public servant who is maintaining his family consisting of adult members out of them some children are taking higher education as submitted by Shri Jaisingh his counsel. His substantive sentence has been suspended by the A. S. J. himself. Thus I find it proper that the sentence of fine which is to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-, also needs to be suspended in, the interest of justice. Thus, the petition is allowed. The sentence of fine which has been inflicted on the petitioner by the trial court also stands suspended on petitioner furnishing security to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- (thirty thousand) which he has to furnish before trial court. Revision allowed. .