SUKUMARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that calls for an answer in this Crl. M.C. is whether sentence in default of payment of fine can be directed to run concurrently with substantive sentence.

(2.) Petitioner is a prisoner undergoing sentence in Sessions Case No. 32 of 1986 of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda. He sent a representation which was treated as Crl. M.C. No. 265/93. On an earlier occasion he sent another representation which was numbered as Crl. M.C. No. 1144 of 1989. A learned Judge of this Court disposed of the said Crl. M.C. along with Crl. M.C. No. 1221 of 1989 by order dated 16-3-1990. Petitioner was the accused in several other cases. Paragraph 3 of the said order adverts to the report submitted by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Viyyur and states that the petitioner has to undergo a total substantive sentence of imprisonment for 60 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default to undergo imprisonment for two years more. It is also stated that, 14 years and 29 days had been set off under S. 248, Cr. P.C. and that he has earned a remission by one year five months and eight days till 13-12-1989. The learned Judge in para 7 of the order directed :

(3.) In the petition, the petitioner's complaint is that, the Jail Authorities insist that he has to remit Rs. 20,000/- as fine imposed on him in C.C. Nos. 213 of 1985, 103 of 1986, 150 of 1986 and 217 of 1986. According to him, in view of the order of this court in Cr. M.C. No. 1144 of 1989 he is not liable to pay fine nor is he liable to suffer the default sentence in the event of non-payment of fine. Thus, the precise question is whether this court's direction that the sentences against the accused would run concurrently with the sentence awarded in S.C. No. 32 of 1986 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda will in any way affect the sentence of fine and the default sentences.