JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J. (Oral) :- Petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the commission of offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the commission of offence under Section 24 of Immigration Act by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, vide order dated 15.7.2008. In appeal filed by the accused/revisionist, order on quantum of sentence passed by learned trial Court was modified. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year instead of two years under Section 420 IPC. Rest of the sentence was affirmed by learned Appellate Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide judgment dated 20.1.2011. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not pressing this revision on merit and is not challenging the conviction of the accused under Section 420 IPC and 24 of Immigration Act. Learned counsel has argued that this Court may enhance the fine and may consider to reduce the sentence for the period already undergone. 3. Mr. Jaspreet Sekhon, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, has filed custody certificate of the accused-revisionist and states that no other criminal case is pending against the accused-revisionist. He further submits that the petitioner/accused has already undergone 6 months and 26 days till 25.4.2011. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. The present case was registered against the petitioner for offence under Section 420 IPC and 24 of Immigration Act. The sword of Damocles is not to hangover the head of the petitioner for all times to come. He has suffered mental agony due to registration of this criminal case against him. The petitioner has already undergone sentence for eight months in this case. In the opinion of this Court, no useful purpose shall be served in keeping the petitioner in jail in the company of hard core criminals; reducing the sentence for the period already undergone and enhancing the fine seems to be best option. Therefore, sentence is reduced for the period already undergone in the present case. In the opinion of this Court, no useful purpose shall be served in keeping the petitioner in jail in the company of hard core criminals; reducing the sentence for the period already undergone and enhancing the fine seems to be best option. Therefore, sentence is reduced for the period already undergone in the present case. However, fine imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- over and above the fine already imposed by the Trial Court. The petitioner is directed to deposit the above said amount, within one month from today, with the Trial Court. It is made clear that in case enhanced amount of fine is not deposited, as directed above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 6. With above mentioned modification in the matter of sentence, this revision petition stands disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------