Inadmissible sentencing material can justify reduction of punishment even where the conviction remains undisturbed.

Conviction for unlicensed possession of cartridges was sustained on concurrent findings of fact, but the sentence was interfered with because the sentencing assessment had been influenced by inadmissible material suggesting the appellant's alleged supply of ammunition to dacoits. In the absence of any shown previous conviction, that adverse material was not supported by admissible evidence and could not properly justify the original punishment. The appellate court therefore reduced the sentence from two years' rigorous imprisonment to one year's rigorous imprisonment while leaving the conviction undisturbed, applying the principle that sentence may be corrected to secure the ends of justice when tainted by inadmissible considerations.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment required interference because it was influenced by inadmissible evidence about the appellant's alleged connection with dacoits.

Analysis: The conviction for unlicensed possession of cartridges was based on concurrent findings of fact and was not disturbed. On the question of sentence, the reference to the appellant's supposed supply of ammunition to dacoits was unsupported by admissible evidence. As the appellant had no shown previous conviction and the adverse sentencing assessment appears to have been affected by that material, interference was warranted to meet the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The sentence was reduced from two years' rigorous imprisonment to one year's rigorous imprisonment, while the conviction was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the quantum of sentence is shown to have been influenced by inadmissible material, the appellate court may interfere with sentence to the extent necessary to secure the ends of justice, even while sustaining the conviction.

---