JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J. (Oral):-The appellant was tried for offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. on the allegations that on 6.6.1992 at about 8.30 PM, he was found in possession of H.E.36 hand-grenade in the area of Dhariwal and by means of the same, he could have endangered the human life or caused serious injuries to the property and also under such circumstances as to give rise to reasonable apprehension that he was having such explosive substance under his control for an unlawful object. 2. The trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 4 of the Act and held him guilty under Section 5 of the Act. It went ahead to sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur on 12.5.1998 stands challenged in the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 5 of the Act. Instead, he has submitted that the appellant has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than 18 years. He is not a previous convict. There is nothing on the record to suggest that he has been indulging in any criminal activity. The appellant has already undergone an actual sentence of about 7 months, out of the sentence of five years imposed upon him. Therefore, the substantive sentence of the appellant be reduced to that already undergone by him. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has stated that as the appellant was found in possession of a hand-grenade for an unlawful object, he does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order of sentence. 6. While being examined by the trial Court on the quantum of sentence, the appellant had stated that he was a young man of 30 years of age and had old parents to look after. There was no other male member in his family to look after his parents. 6. While being examined by the trial Court on the quantum of sentence, the appellant had stated that he was a young man of 30 years of age and had old parents to look after. There was no other male member in his family to look after his parents. The appellant has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than 18 years. This appeal has remained pending for more than 12 years. As per the custody certificate produced by the learned State counsel in the Court today, the appellant remained in custody as an under trial for 3 months and 22 days. After his conviction and sentence by the trial Court, he served a period of 3 months in jail before he was released on bail. He has, thus, already undergone an actual period of 6 months and 22 days in jail, out of the sentence of 5 years imposed upon him. 7. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts, as well as the fact that the appellant is not a previous convict and he does not have bad record, the Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant behind the bars for undergoing his remaining sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentence of the appellant is reduced to that already undergone by him. 8. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1098, is up-held. However, his substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. The sentence of fine, alongwith its default clause is maintained. But for the modification in the quantum of sentence of imprisonment, as indicated above, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. --------------