From the wordings of Sections 979(1), 298(b) and 247 of the Sokoto State Penal Code Law Cap. 104 Laws of Sokoto State 1996 under which the convicts were convicted, the trial court has been giving some direction to exercise as to the term of imprisonment to be imposed and the power to impose option of fine. It is trite law that where a statute gives discretion to a trial court to exercise in sentencing a convict and it has become judicious and judicial to do so, then the trial court can pass a sentence less than the one provided by the law crating the offence after having regards to the circumstances and facts of the case. - Musa V. State (2012) 3 NWLR p 50. - Amoshima V. State (2011) 14 NWLR pt 1268 p 50. It is also trite law that where the law prescribes imprisonment with option of fine, in sentencing procedure, the fine comes first, and in default, the imprisonment takes effect and not the other way round. - Ogunbayo V. State (2007) 8 NWLR pt 1035 p 157. - Iortim V. State (1997) 2 NWLR pt 490 p 711. - Apamadari V. State (1997) 3 NWLR pt 493 p 289. Considering the grounds upon which the plea of leniency is made on behalf of the convicts, it is the humble view of this court that this is a case in which this court and I believe like any other court of law will temper justice with mercy by sentencing the convicts with an option of fine and less term of imprisonment in default of the payment of fines than the term of imprisonment which created the offences. Accordingly, the convicts Hussaini Shehu, Sama’ila Abdullahi and Sama’ila Sulaiman are hereby sentenced to a fine of N20,000 each for Page 26 of 27