MADAPPEN MUHASSIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ''Is it imperative to impose a default sentence together with a sentence of fine - The appellant is the accused in Sessions Case No.17/2001 of the 3rd Additional Session 's Court, Thrissur. Even though he was indicted for the offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, he was found guilty of the offence under Sec. 325 of Indian Penal Code only, and convicted thereunder. The court below imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years for the offence under Sec. 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was taken up in appeal.

(2.) -3. This Court considered the matter in Crl. Appeal No.838/2002, and confirmed the conviction under Sec. 325 of the Indian Penal Code and modified the sentence by reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment to one year and imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/ - vide judgment dated 25.5.2009. It is also ordered that the fine amount if realised, be disbursed to the legal representatives of the deceased under Sec. 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. At the same time, this Court has not imposed any default sentence with regard to the sentence of fine. 4. The Superintendent of the Central Prison and Correction Home, Viyyur has sought for a clarification as to whether any default sentence has to be imposed in respect of the sentence of fine. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Sec. 64 of Indian Penal Code says: