JUDGMENT : The present appeal filed under Section 374, Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.6/12 which was pending on the file of the court of sessions at Yadgir. He has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 506, I.P.C. and Sections 25(1A) and 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, and directed to undergo RI for a period of 7 years, 2 years, 7 years and 5 years respectively and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/each for the offence punishable under Section 392, I.P.C. and Sections 25(1A) and 27(1)of the Arms Act. The said judgment of conviction is dated 4.9.2011 and the judgment of sentence is dated 18.9.2011. 2. Several grounds have been urged in the appeal memo. The facts leading to the conviction and sentence of this appellant are as follows: a) The Circle Inspector of Hunasagi police station, Shorapur Taluk, chose to file charge sheet against this appellant for the above offences. A lady by name Ningamma (CW1), a resident of Benakanahalli village which comes within Hunasagi police station, was washing clothes in a public tank of the village at about 11.00 a.m. on 16.11.2010. At that time, the appellant came on a motorcycle and asked her to provide him a metal tumbler (chambu) in order to attend nature call. The said lady told him that she did not have any tumbler and to go to the village to get the same. Being enraged by the reply, accused is stated to have snatched away her gold Tikamani (gold chain worn around her neck) forcibly. When she resisted, he took out a pistol concealed in his waist and threatened her by brandishing at her forehead. He is stated to have threatened her that he would eliminate her. Later on, he went away towards Benakanahalli village on his motorcycle. b) After a few minutes, CW2-Chennappa came there and CW1-victim told him as to what happened. He took her on his motorcycle and left her to her house, and informed CW3 to CW6 who are residents of Vajal village and they tried to apprehend the accused. When CW3 tried to apprehend the accused, he is stated to have made an attempt to kill CW3. c) Then CW15 with the help of CWs-7 to 14, apprehended the accused near Malanur village hillock on 17.11.2010 and subjected to custodial interrogation. When CW3 tried to apprehend the accused, he is stated to have made an attempt to kill CW3. c) Then CW15 with the help of CWs-7 to 14, apprehended the accused near Malanur village hillock on 17.11.2010 and subjected to custodial interrogation. On his voluntary statement, the gold chain, pistol and chilli powder were recovered. d) A case came to be registered in Crime No.135/10 on the basis of first information lodged by CW1 and the report and FIR were produced before the jurisdictional magistrate on the same day. Since the offences under Sections 25(1A) and 27 of the Arms Act are exclusively triable by the sessions court, the matter was committed to the sessions court. Charges were framed for the above offences on 17.4.2012 and the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. e) The accused has been in judicial custody ever since his arrest, i.e. from 17.11.2010. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and has got marked 12 exhibits and four material objects. MO1 is the pistol, M)-2 is the mobile, MO-3 is the gold chain and MO-4 is chilli powder. Accused has been examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. in regard to incriminating materials emanating from the prosecution case. His defence is one of total denial of the allegations made against him. 4. Ningamma, the victim, is examined as PW1. She has supported the case of the prosecution. CW2-Chennappa to whom CW1 had disclosed the incident, is examined as PW2. CW-3 to 5 and CW8 who have been examined as PWs-3 to 6 were persons who attempted to catch hold of the accused while he was running away and they have not supported the prosecution case in spite of being cross-examined by the prosecutor with the permission of the court. PW7-Maraiah is the attestor to the recovery mahazar marked as Ex.P6. Venkatesh-PW8 is the attestor to the spot mahazar-Ex.P7. Both of them have supported the case of the prosecution. PW9-Doulat was the PSI of Hunasagi police station on 16.11.2010 and it was he who received the first information from Ningamma and registered a case in Crime No.135/10 and submitted the same to the magistrate. PW10 was the Inspector of Police and it was he who conducted the entire investigation and filed charge sheet. PW9-Doulat was the PSI of Hunasagi police station on 16.11.2010 and it was he who received the first information from Ningamma and registered a case in Crime No.135/10 and submitted the same to the magistrate. PW10 was the Inspector of Police and it was he who conducted the entire investigation and filed charge sheet. PW11 is Gurmit Tej, Deputy Commissioner of Yadgir District who has accorded sanction to prosecute the accused in terms of the provisions of the Arms Act. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The learned judge of the trial court has come to the conclusion that the evidence of PW1 is believable and needs no corroboration. Therefore he has held that recovery of M.Os.-1 to 4 were at the instance of the accused consequent upon disclosure made by him while in police custody. Learned judge has further held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and the version of PW1 needs corroboration and that is lacking. He has argued that no test identification parade was conducted by the investigating officer and the alleged identification made by PW1 in court, that too, after 1 ½ years is no identification in the eye of law. He has further argued that recovery of incriminating articles is also not proved and therefore the trial court could not have relied on these circumstances. 7. Per contra, learned HCGP, Mr. P.S. Patil has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. He has argued that there is no reason to disbelieve the deposition of PW1 and identification of the accused made by her in court. He has argued that the victim was robbed of her gold chain in broad day light and therefore she had ample opportunity to notice his features and it had got imprinted in her memory canvass. It is argued that the accused was taken to police custody and the disclosure so made during interrogation has resulted in recovery of the incriminating articles in the presence of respectable witnesses. It is further argued that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 8. It is argued that the accused was taken to police custody and the disclosure so made during interrogation has resulted in recovery of the incriminating articles in the presence of respectable witnesses. It is further argued that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even if the judgment of conviction were to be upheld, the appellant is entitled for a lesser punishment and that he has been in judicial custody for a period of 4 years and 9 months and the same may be taken into consideration. It is argued that the appellant has no criminal back ground and is aged 38 years and is a permanent resident of Shahpur having roots in the community. 9. After going through the records and hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP, the following points arise for consideration: 1) Whether the version of PW1 in regard to the identification of the accused is acceptable in law and on facts? 2) Whether the prosecution has proved recovery of incriminating articles, i.e. M.Os.-1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt 3) Whether the trial court is justified in convicting the accused for the offences charged and if so, whether the accused is entitled for any lenience in the matter of sentence, and if so, to what extent? REASONS 10. Point no.(1): NingammaPW1 is cited as CW1 in the charge sheet. She was aged 40 years when she tendered oral evidence on 5.7.2002. The fact that she is a permanent resident of Benakanahalli village is not in dispute. The statement given by Ningamma to the PSI at about 1.00 p.m. on 16.11.2010 is marked as Ex.P1. It was received by the SHO and a case was registered in Crime No.135/10. The alleged incident is stated to have taken place on 16.11.2010 at 11.00 a.m. 11. First information could be used either for contradiction or corroboration. Therefore it is useful to look into the contents of Ex.P1. It is mentioned in Ex.P1 that PW1 was washing clothes in a public tank on 16.11.2010 and at about 11.00 a.m., a person on a motorcycle came near her and asked her to give him a metal tumbler (chambu) in order to attend nature call. Therefore it is useful to look into the contents of Ex.P1. It is mentioned in Ex.P1 that PW1 was washing clothes in a public tank on 16.11.2010 and at about 11.00 a.m., a person on a motorcycle came near her and asked her to give him a metal tumbler (chambu) in order to attend nature call. She told him that she did not have one, and he could go to the village to get the same. Suddenly he snatched the gold chain she was wearing around her neck and when she screamed, he took out a pistol from his waist and held it on her forehead and threatened her that he would eliminate her if she were to again scream. He then pushed her and went away on his motorcycle towards Benakanahalli. Suddenly she came screaming towards the road and at that time Chennappa, son of Durgappa asked her what had happened. She narrated to him as to what had happened. Chennappa talked to somebody over phone and took her on his motorcycle and left her in her house. In Ex.P1, the approximate features of the person who snatched her gold chain are mentioned. He was aged 32-35 years, well built and of brown complexion with little moustache and had worn a white pant. He had a small black beard also. It is mentioned that she would identify him if she were to see him again. She wanted action to be taken against him. 12. Ex.P1 discloses that her statement was recorded at 1.00 p.m. on 16.11.2010. The FIR is marked as Ex.P8. Both Ex.P1 and P8 were handed over to P.C. 1197 of Hunasagi police station to be submitted before the magistrate. Both of them were submitted at 10.45 p.m. on the same day by the constable and the contents found on Ex.P12 is as follows: ‘Received from P.C.1197 along with one additional document also at 10.45 p.m. Sd/- 16.11.2010 There is no delay in submitting the FIR and report before the magistrate. Similarly there is no delay in submitting first information to the police. The incident took place at 11:00 a.m. and the distance between Hunasagi police station and the spot is 12 kms. The FIR was lodged within two hours of the incident. 13. Similarly there is no delay in submitting first information to the police. The incident took place at 11:00 a.m. and the distance between Hunasagi police station and the spot is 12 kms. The FIR was lodged within two hours of the incident. 13. The version of PSI as well as police inspector examined as PW9 and PW10 is that they tried to apprehend the accused and had specific information that he was near a hillock at Malur and was apprehended on the morning of 17.11.2010. It is true this accused was subjected to custodial interrogation on 17.11.2010 and was not shown to PW1 either in the police station or elsewhere after his apprehension within a reasonable time. Therefore learned counsel for the appellant has argued that identification of the accused done by PW1 in the court was after 1 ½ years and hence, it is no identification in the eye of law and it absolutely required corroboration. 14. Section 9 of the Evidence Act speaks about facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts. Section is extracted below: 9. Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts. Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such act was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose. While assessing the evidence of identification, it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down hard and fast rules. Certain guiding principles can be set. One such principle is that the fact or circumstances should be proved against the accused before it could be relied upon and used against him. The evidence of identification is subject to the definition of ‘proof’ in terms of Section 3 of the Evidence Act and must satisfy the test laid down therein. What is held by the Hon’ble apex court in the case of Budhsen v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( AIR 1970 SC 1321 ) is that the evidence as to identification must be subjected to close and careful scrutiny by the court. What is held by the Hon’ble apex court in the case of Budhsen v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( AIR 1970 SC 1321 ) is that the evidence as to identification must be subjected to close and careful scrutiny by the court. Identification test does not constitute substantive evidence and it can only be used as corroborative statement in court. Ultimately appreciation of evidence regarding identification would depend on the strength and trust worthiness of the witness. 15. The main object of holding identification parade is to test the memory of the witness based on first impression and also help the prosecution to decide whether any of them could be cited as an eyewitness to the crime. The purpose of conducting test identification parade is to strengthen the trustworthiness of the evidence. What is held by the Hon’ble apex court in the case of Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Administration ( AIR 1958 SC 350 ) is that failure to hold identification does not make the evidence of identification in court inadmissible. Though identification for the first time in court cannot be relied on in the absence of corroboration, it can form the basis for conviction. The victim had plenty of time to recognize the accused while he removed the gold ornament she had given his description in the First Information marked as Ex.P1. In such circumstances, identification for the first time in court would not be vitiated by not conducting test identification parade, as held by the Hon’ble apex court in the case of State of Maharashtra, Etc. v. Sukhdeo Singh & Another ( AIR 1992 SC 2100 ). 16. In the present case, CW1 is examined as PW1. She has virtually corroborated the contents of Ex.P1 in her examination-in-chief insofar as it relates to the snatching of gold chain and about his physical features. She has been cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the accused. In her cross-examination, she has feigned ignorance as to what is written in Ex.P1. But the contents of Ex.P1 are found in her examination-in-chief. A suggestion put to her that the accused did not go there and did not snatch away the gold chain has been specifically denied. She has identified the accused for the first time in court when her examination-in-chief was recorded on 5.7.2012. But the contents of Ex.P1 are found in her examination-in-chief. A suggestion put to her that the accused did not go there and did not snatch away the gold chain has been specifically denied. She has identified the accused for the first time in court when her examination-in-chief was recorded on 5.7.2012. The accused was shown to her in the court hall and she had identified him as the person who snatched the gold chain from her and as the person who had worn white pant on that day and as the person who had come on a motorcycle. 17. What is argued before this court by the learned counsel for the appellant is that PW1 has not deposed anything about the pistol being held by the accused and brandishing it. There is a lot of force in the submission. PW1 has not deposed anything about the threat held out to her by the accused by brandishing a pistol at her forehead, except alleging that he took away the gold chain from her neck. During the course of cross-examination, she has denied a suggestion put to her that accused had not come there and did not snatch the gold chain from her. Of course she has deposed that she has sustained some injuries but was not referred to the hospital by the police, though she had shown the injuries sustained by her, to the police. 18. On scanning the entire evidence of PW1, it is certain that she had sufficient time to observe the accused, as the alleged incident of snatching away her gold chain took place in broad day light in an open space. It is in this regard learned HCGP has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble apex court in the case of Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand ([2011] 3 SCC 654). Aspect of test identification has been dealt with at length in paragraphs 45 to 51. It is held that test identification is conducted with a view to strengthen the trustworthiness of evidence and it provides corroboration to a witness in court who claims to have identified the accused otherwise unknown to him or her. Aspect of test identification has been dealt with at length in paragraphs 45 to 51. It is held that test identification is conducted with a view to strengthen the trustworthiness of evidence and it provides corroboration to a witness in court who claims to have identified the accused otherwise unknown to him or her. It is further held that non-conducting of test identification parade will not ipso jure be fatal to the prosecution case, although the investigating agency could connect the description that PW1 has given, especially when she was not familiar with the accused. The said observation does not affect the credibility of the identification of PW1 for the first time because of the manner in which the incident took place and the opportunity that she had to see and observe the actions of the accused. 19. One cannot forget that PW1 has deposed that the accused had come on a motorcycle near her and asked her to give him a metal tumbler in order to attend nature call and she answered in the negative stating that she did not have any tumbler. Then he suddenly snatched the gold chain she had worn around her neck and took away and ran away on the motorcycle. The approximate time that might have been consumed to do all this was 34 minutes and PW1, being a rustic villager of 40 years, was able to remember the same. Nothing useful has been elicited from her mouth to discredit her version. 20. One cannot forget that she is a rustic villager and had no motive to falsely implicate this appellant. The evidence of PW1 does not require any corroboration either in the form of oral evidence or by way of test identification parade. Even if non-conducting of identification parade is considered to be defective, it will not go to the root of the prosecution case. The testimony of PW1 is full of credibility insofar as it relates to the snatching of her gold chain is concerned. She has identified the gold chain subsequently in court. 21. Though the name of the accused is not found in the FIR, the requisite features of the person noticed by her at that point of time are forthcoming in the FIR lodged at the earliest point of time. She has identified the gold chain subsequently in court. 21. Though the name of the accused is not found in the FIR, the requisite features of the person noticed by her at that point of time are forthcoming in the FIR lodged at the earliest point of time. The speed with which the first information was lodged to the police has not given any scope for embellishment in the prosecution. It is not the case of the accused that he had been shown by the police at an earlier point of time after the incident. Corroboration is only a rule of prudence and not a rule of evidence. It is held by the Hon’ble apex court in the case of R.N. Patel & Others .v. State of Gujarat ([2000] 1 SCC 358) that in the absence of test identification parade, the evidence of an eyewitness identifying the accused for the first time during trial would not become inadmissible or useless. It is further clarified that the same would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case since identification of the accused in court is substantive evidence. Therefore even on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, it has to be held that the learned judge is justified in holding that the test identification was not required and identification of the accused done by the victim after the incident is an acceptable evidence and inspires the confidence of this court also. Hence, point no.(1) is answered in the affirmative. 22. Point No.2: The case of the prosecution is that the accused snatched the gold chain from her neck and when she screamed, he brandished a pistol at her forehead and threatened her to eliminate her if she were to scream. This material aspect is not forthcoming in her evidence, though it is forthcoming in Ex.P1, As already discussed, the contents of first information could be considered for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction. The material omission in regard to this in her evidence will be taken into consideration insofar as it relates to the threat allegedly held out to her in order to sustain the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and 25(1A) and 27 of Arms Act. The material omission in regard to this in her evidence will be taken into consideration insofar as it relates to the threat allegedly held out to her in order to sustain the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and 25(1A) and 27 of Arms Act. Prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused insofar as possession of pistol by the accused and use of the same against the victim at the relevant point of time is concerned. 23. Prosecution has relied upon Ex.P6 recovery mahazar. MOs-1 to 4 which were allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused. This recovery according to the prosecution, is under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The fact that he was subjected to custodial interrogation on 17.11.2010 is not seriously disputed while cross examining PW10 Shankar, Circle Inspector, who conducted further investigation. In his examination-in-chief, PW10 has deposed that on 17.11.2010 at 6:00 p.m., himself and his staff saw one person coming on a motorcycle near Malur village and on apprehending him, he disclosed his name as Bhimaraya, son of Basanna Poojari and was brought for interrogation. He has deposed that the accused volunteered stating that he had a pistol and a gold chain and that he would show the same if he is taken to the place. This portion is marked as Ex.P9. The deposition of PW10 in regard to recovery is in regard to Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 24. This material assertion by PW10 found in his examination in chief is not at all touched during the course of cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused. On the other hand, Marayya-PW7 who is an attestor to Ex.P6, recovery mahazar drawn in Malur Village hillock between 6:45 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. on 17.11.2010. His signature is marked as Ex.P6 (a). he has deposed that at 6:30 a.m. he was taken by the police to hillock and the accused was caught hold of and at his instance, a gold chain, a pistol and chilli power were recovered by the police. He has identified his signature as Ex.P6 (a) and M.Os.1 to 4 which were recovered at the instance of the accused at that place. Suggestion put to him that he was very close to Hunasagi police station has been denied. He has identified his signature as Ex.P6 (a) and M.Os.1 to 4 which were recovered at the instance of the accused at that place. Suggestion put to him that he was very close to Hunasagi police station has been denied. A suggestion put to him that he was deposing at the instance of the police has been specifically denied. Though he was cross examined at length, nothing useful has been elicited from his mouth to discredit his version. Therefore, recovery of M.Os.1 to 4 is duly proved and it is in accordance with mandate of Section 27 of Evidence Act. 25. Mere recovery of pistol at the instance of the accused could be insufficient. In the present case, the important witness who has to speak about the alleged threat and brandishing of pistol on the forehead of PW1 is PW1 and PW1 only. But she has not whispered anything about the threat given to her and pistol being brandished. Whatever she has deposed is in regard to snatching of gold chain only by the accused and her identification of the accused. Therefore, prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had possessed a pistol at that point of time and brandished the same at her forehead and threatened her with dire consequences if she were to scream again. The prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt about the robbing of the lady of her gold chain from her neck and speeding away on his motorcycle and his apprehension on the early morning of 17.11.2010, and subjecting him to custodial interrogation leading to his arrest. Thus, prosecution has been able to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt insofar as it relates to robbery of the gold chain from the neck of PW1Ningamma, a rustic villager at 11:00 a.m. on 16.11.2010, while she was washing clothes near a public tank in Benakanahalli village. The prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused had threatened her with dire consequences and possessing and brandishing a pistol at her forehead after snatching gold chain. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in the negative. 26. Point no.(3): The learned Judge has convicted the accused in respect of all the offences for which he has been charged i.e., section 392, 506 of IPC and 25(1A) and 27(1) of Arms Act. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in the negative. 26. Point no.(3): The learned Judge has convicted the accused in respect of all the offences for which he has been charged i.e., section 392, 506 of IPC and 25(1A) and 27(1) of Arms Act. As already discussed the prosecution has been able to prove only the offence punishable under section 392 of IPC and not other offences. In this view of the matter the trial court has not tested the evidence with regard to other offences on the touchstone of intrinsic probabilities. It appears that the trial court is carried away by the factum of proof of robbery of the gold chain from the custody of PW1. In this view of the matter, the Trial Court is not justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section of IPC and 25(1A) and 27(1) of Arms Act. 27. Accused has been in judicial custody from 17.11.2010 till today. Thus, he has been in judicial custody for 4 years 9 months. The learned Judge has awarded minimum punishment as contemplated under section 27(2) of Arms Act. Sections 25(1A) and 27 of the Arms Act are reproduced below. 25. Punishment for certain offences: (1) …. (1A) Whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of Section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. 27. Punishment for using arms, etc. (1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of Section 5o shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of Section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. (3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of Section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with death. The penal provision of Section 392 of IPC is as follows: 392. Punishment for robbery. (3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of Section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with death. The penal provision of Section 392 of IPC is as follows: 392. Punishment for robbery. Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years. Robbery took place during day time. The maximum imprisonment can extend up to 10 years and also to pay fine. If robbery is on the highway between sunset and sunrise, it can extend up to 14 years. Sentencing of the accused-appellant for the offences under Section 506 IPC and Sections 25(1A) and 27(1) of Arms Act is not sustainable either in law or on facts. Therefore, conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under section 392 of IPC will have to be upheld. 28. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant-accused is a first time offender and is aged about 35 years and is a married person having one daughter and one son and that he is a permanent resident of Shahpur of Yadgir District having roots in the community. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/. Imposition of Rs.2,000/- cannot be considered as excessive or exorbitant. Taking into consideration that the appellant is a first time offender and has a wife and two children depending on him, there could be some lenience insofar as it relates to sentence of imprisonment imposed under section 392 of IPC. Sentencing him to RI for a period of 5 years would meet the ends of justice. 29. In the result following order is passed : ORDER : The appeal is allowed in part, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 506, I.P.C. and Sections 25(1A) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Sentencing him to RI for a period of 5 years would meet the ends of justice. 29. In the result following order is passed : ORDER : The appeal is allowed in part, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 506, I.P.C. and Sections 25(1A) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence punishable under Section 392, I.P.C. only and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/(rupees two thousand only) as ordered by the trial court. The period of detention undergone by him be set off as contemplated under Section 428, Cr. P.C. He shall be released if he is not required in any other case and entitled for remission as per the rules or Jail Manual, as the case may be. Registry to intimate the concerned jail authorities at Central Jail, Kalaburagi, by sending the operative portion of this order, without undue delay.