ORDER Heard in motion. Admitted With the consent of both the learned counsel further arguments are heard. Following order is being passed. 1. This revision by the accused-applicant impugns judgment dated 6.10.2007 passed by learned 15th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 375/07 confirming thereby the judgment passed by the learned JMFC, Indore in Criminal Case No. 761/04 vide dated 30.4.2007 convicting and sentencing the accused-applicant under section 14 of the M.P. State Security Act ("Act" hereafter) for 1 year RI and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. The learned counsel for the applicant did not challenge the conviction. He only confined his argument to the sentence. He submitted that under section 14 of the Act a minimum sentence of 4 months is necessary whereas the accused-applicant has already undergone 5 months. He submitted that the defence of the accused-applicant was that he was not arrested from Indore wherein he was not allowed to enter as per externment order. The defence of the accused was that at the relevant time he was in Khandwa where from he was arrested. The learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to a Panch witness of Arrest Memo PW 1 Qamar Hussain who has only stated that he signed the Arrest Memo on the saying of the Arresting Officer at the police station. This witness according to learned counsel though has not been declared hostile and has not been put to cross-examination even by the defence yet in the circumstances it creates a serious doubt about the manner in which the police has acted and, therefore, the learned counsel has submitted that it is a fit case for reduction of sentence instead of going to niceties. 2. Without commenting on merits yet in the circumstances as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is ordered that the substantive sentence as awarded by the two Courts below to the accused-applicant is reduced to the period already undergone and he stands convicted which conviction is maintained. So far as tine sentence is concerned, that is not disturbed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that amount of fine has already been deposited. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed to the above extent. The accused applicant is in custody in this case. If he be not wanted in any other case, he be released forthwith.