Narain and others vs State

H.C.P. Tripathi, J.—The Applicants were convicted by a Special Magistrate First Glass, Rampur, Under Sections 147, 325 and 323 both read with Section 149 IPC and each of them was sentenced to three months'' rigorous imprisonment on the first two counts and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each for the offence u/s 323/149 IPC. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 24-6-1965 set aside the sentences passed by the learned Magistrate and released them u/s 4 of the UP First Offenders'' Probation Act on probation of good conduct on their entering into bonds in the amount of Rs. 1,000/- each with two sureties in the like amount to keep peace and be of good behaviour for one year. On 30-6-1965 the Applicants moved the Sessions Judge that the fine of Rs. 200/- which had been deposited by each of them be ordered to be refunded in view of the fact that he has been pleased to set aside their sentences. The Sessions Judge, however, rejected that application without giving any reason. The Applicants have now come up in revision to this Court.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the Applicants. It has been urged that as the fine imposed on the Applicants constituted a part of the sentence awarded to them by the trial Magistrate and as the appellate court had set aside their sentences and directed them to be released on probation of good conduct the fine paid by them ought to have been refunded. There is no force in this contention.

The question raised in this case is covered by a Single Judge''s decision of this Court in the case of Debi Das Vs. State, wherein it was held that a convicted person cannot get relief in respect of sentence of fine also under the provisions of UP First Offenders'' Probation Act, even though he may have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment as well. I am in respectful agreement with that decision.

Accordingly this revision is dismissed.