STATE Vs. RAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point raised in this reference is whether sentences of fine could be made to run concurrently. The Sub Magistrate of Kuthuparamba convicted one Raman of offences falling under S.55(a) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act, in that he was found in possession of 250 M. litres of illicit arrack kept in one bottle and 6 litres of wash kept in an earthen pot in his house at Vadamamkurussi. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge. He was thereupon convicted under the above sections and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 250 under S.55(a) and another fine of Rs. 250 under S.55(g) of the Act. In default of payment of fine the accused has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each under the above two counts. The learned Magistrate has also given the further direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. By this latter direction it would appear that the sentence of fine is directed to run concurrently. This is not warranted" by the provisions of the Code and hence the reference has been. made by the District Magistrate:

(2.) The matter is covered by S.35. of the Criminal Procedure Code and S.64 of the Penal Code. The two sections have to be read together. The provision for the passing of concurrent sentences can refer only to substantive sentences and not to sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. Under S.64 I.P.C., it shall be competent for the court to direct in default of payment of fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a certain period which imprisonment shall be in excess of any other imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced or to which he may be liable under commutation of a sentence. "Where a court imposes two sentences of imprisonment on an accused person and orders him to pay fine on each of the two counts with imprisonment in default of payment of fine, it may order the substantive terms of imprisonment to run concurrently, but the terms of imprisonment inflicted in default of payment of fine must run consecutively. (vide 2-7 Bom. LR 1351; 27 CriLJ 111 & 30 CriLJ 907 ; Law of Crimes by Ratanlal, 21st Edn. p. 105)".

(3.) The direction of the learned Sub Magistrate that the sentence of fine shall run concurrently is erroneous and has, therefore, to be vacated.