KRISHNA DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By order dated 30/11/1993, the Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Court, has sentenced the petitioner for 3 months imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge which was disposed of by upholding the conviction but admitting the petitioner to the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act by order dated 22/08/1994.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that during the trial, the petitioner was given the case property on superdari for which he had furnished a surety to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000.00 which stood forfeited to the State because the case property was not produced by the accused. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the forfeiture of the amount is a part of the substantive sentence. This argument has no basis and must be rejected. The substantial sentence awarded was 3 months imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000.00.

(3.) The forferture of the superdari amount is not within the ambit of Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, is not a punishment as defined under that Code nor under the Essential Commodities Act. It cannot be held that the forfeiture of the amount in terms of the superdari is a part of the substantive sentence. However, since the conviction was maintained but the sentence was set aside to enable the convict to the benefits under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, the fine of Rs. 1,000.00 imposed as part of the substantive sentence, was required to be set aside. In this view of the matter the amount of Rs. 1,000.00 which has been deposited by way of fine, shall be refunded to the petitioner.