JUDGMENT 1. - The abovenamed accused appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.9.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No. 58/95, by which he convicted and sentenced the accused appellant in the following manner:- Name of accused Conviction Sentence Awarded Navtaj Singh @ Honey U/r 3/6 of the Passport (Entry Into India) Rules, 1950 3 Months S.I. U/s 7/25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 6 Years R.I. and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine, one month S.I. 2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. It arises in the following circumstances:- PW 12 Lal Singh lodged a report Ex. P/8 in the Police Station, Nachna on 2.7.1995 stating inter alia that as per the information of Mukhbir on the night of 1/2nd July, 1995, some persons from Pakistan were to enter India without valid passport and for that vigilance was being kept and in the night of that day, two persons were seen coming from the side of Tarbandi on way Naka No. 2 and they were apprehended and out of them, one person took the cynide capsule and died on the spot and another person, who is present accused appellant, on being interrogation told his name and stated that he belongs to District Ludhiana, Punjab and from his possession AK Rifle and some Rifle cartridges were recovered and, thereafter, police chalked out FIR Ex P/9 and accused appellant was arrested. After usual investigation, challan was filed.4-5. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 11 9.1998 framed charges against the accused appellant for the offence under Rule 3/6 of the Passport (Entry Into India) Rules, 1950 and under Sections 3, 7/25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. Accused appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. As many as 12 witnesses were produced by the Prosecution in support of its case and thereafter, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and one witness was produced by the accused appellant in defence.6. The learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment and order dated 24.9.1999 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant, as stated above. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 24.9.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, the present appeal has been filed by the accused appellant.7. The learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment and order dated 24.9.1999 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant, as stated above. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 24.9.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, the present appeal has been filed by the accused appellant.7. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the accused appellant has not challenged the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer against the accused appellant and has prayed that so far as the appeal regarding conviction of the accused appellant for the offences under Rule 3/6 of the Passport (Entry Into India) Rules, 1950 and under section 7/25 of the India Arms Act, 1959 is concerned, it may be dismissed. But, he has argued on the point of sentence stating that the accused appellant was sentenced to six years R.I. and he has already served out the sentence of five years, which is the minimum sentence for the offence under section 7/25 of the India Arms Act. Thus, he has prayed that sentence of accused appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him and he may be released accordingly.8. This prayer of the learned counsel for the accused appellant has not been opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.9. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case.10. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and that accused appellant has already served out the five years sentence, which is the minimum sentence for the offence under section 7/25 of the India Arms Act, 1959, it will be just and proper that the period of sentence awarded to the accused appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.11. Hence, the appeal of the accused appellant Navtaj Singh @ Honey against conviction made by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer vide order dated 24.9.1999 for the offence under Rule 3/6 of the Passport (Entry Into India) Rules, 1950 and under section 7/25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 is dismissed.12. However, on point of sentence. the appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the accused appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Hence, accused appellant Navtaj Singh @ Honey be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. However, on point of sentence. the appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the accused appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Hence, accused appellant Navtaj Singh @ Honey be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. It is made clear that so far as the deposit of fine of Rs. 5,000/- is concerned, the learned counsel for the accused appellant has agreed that the same would be deposited by him as and it will have no bearing with the sentence already undergone by accused appellant.13. So far as the prayer of the learned counsel for the accused appellant that more than Rs. 5,000/- were recovered from the accused appellant and they may be returned to him is concerned, it is for the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer to consider the said prayer and decide it in accordance with law.Appeal partly allowed. *******