JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 374 Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.8.1985 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deeg in Sessions Case No. 53/1984 whereby appellant Munshi has been convicted for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of . Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of which to undergo further imprisonment for 15 days. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that an FIR No. 179/1984 came to be registered at PS. Deeg on 23.7.1984 against the appellant and three others for the offences under Section 399/402 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act by Virendra Singh, the then SHO PS Deeg, with the allegations that while he was on patrolling duty, he received a secret information to the effect that 7-8 persons were making preparation for committing dacoity at a nearby place. After obtaining additional police force, he reached the place and nabbed four persons namely; Munshi, Bhikam, Ibrahim and Akhtar and others fled away from there. They were put on trial and were charged for the offences under Section 399/402 Indian Penal Code on the allegation that they were making preparation for committing dacoity at 8.00 p.m. on 23.7.1984 in a dilapidated thatched hut situated near the well in Nagla Ramjilal Faujdar. Appellant Munshi and co-accused Akhtar were further charged for the offence under section 3/25 of the Arms Act on the allegation that they were having a 12 bore country made gun and three live cartridges and two live cartridges respectively without valid license. The trial Court after due trial acquitted all the accused persons of the charges under section 399/402 Indian Penal Code but convicted the, appellant and co-accused Akhtar for the offence under section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Co-accused Akhtar was let-off on the sentence already undergone and a fine of Rs. -100/- in default of payment of which to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days. The appellant was, however, sentenced as mentioned above. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, he preferred this appeal before this Court challenging his conviction as well as the quantum of sentence. 4. -100/- in default of payment of which to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days. The appellant was, however, sentenced as mentioned above. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, he preferred this appeal before this Court challenging his conviction as well as the quantum of sentence. 4. His learned counsel has, however, at the hearing of the appeal stated at the out-set that he does not wish to challenge his conviction on merits and he confines his prayer to the quantum of sentence. He has submitted that co-accused Akhtar who was also caught red handed with two live cartridges alongwith appellant was let-off on the sentence already undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 100/- only with default stipulation whereas the appellant has undergone more than four months in custody i.e. w.e.f. 23.7.1984 to 29.11.1984 and has suffered sufficient punishment during the trial and appeal. So, his imprisonment may also be reduced to the period already undergone and at best his fine may be enhanced. 5. Learned PP has also no serious objection to this. 6. I have given my careful and thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submission and have also perused the impugned judgment as well as record. 7. From the testimony of the prosecution witnesses namely Virendra Singh PW-5 the then SHO, Sher Singh PW-6, Dayaram Singh PW-3, Devi Ram PW-4 and Ram Bharose Lal PW-2, it is abundantly and beyond all manner of reasonable doubt proved that the appellant was caught red handed on the spot and was arrested vide Ex.P-5 and a 12 bore country made pistol and three live cartridges were recovered from his possession. He was put on trial after obtaining sanction of the competent authority i.e., the Collector and the District Magistrate, Bharatpur Ex.P-13. There is no legal or factual infirmity in the impugned judgment in this regard. The appellant has been rightly convicted for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and the judgment of his conviction does not call for any interference by this Court; 8. The appellant has, no doubt, been facing trial for over 26 years. There is no allegation against him that he ever repeated the alleged offences or any other offence during this long period. He has already undergone more than 4 months of imprisonment during trial and has thus suffered sufficient mental agony, physical torture and financial loss. The appellant has, no doubt, been facing trial for over 26 years. There is no allegation against him that he ever repeated the alleged offences or any other offence during this long period. He has already undergone more than 4 months of imprisonment during trial and has thus suffered sufficient mental agony, physical torture and financial loss. No useful purpose would be served in sending him to custody again to serve but the remaining short period of sentence of less than 2 months after the lapse of such a long period. 9. Thus, having regard to all the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him and to enhance the sentence of fine deserves to be allowed. 10. Consequently, the conviction of appellant Munshi S/o Ramswaroop for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act is confirmed and upheld but the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him is reduced to. the period already undergone by him and sentence of fine of Rs. 200/- is enhanced to. Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of which, he shall undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for two and a half months.Appeal partly allowed. *******