CHANDRIKA PRASAD PANDEY Vs. KANTI PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition seeks quashing of the passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool, Mahabubnagar District, dated 4.1.2000 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 413/1999 in S.C. No. 70/1993.

(2.) It may be seen that the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 376, IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for some term and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. In Crl. A.No. 190/94 by judgment dated 29.6.1999, this Court set aside the conviction and the sentence. Pursuant to that, the petitioner (accused) approached the Court in Crl. M.P. No. 413/1999 for refund of the fine paid pursuant to the judgment convicting him and sentencing him to pay the fine.

(3.) It is obvious that when the conviction and the sentence of the accused is set aside, there is no warrant for the retention of the fine amount paid by the accused. It does not requite any great legal acumenory or authority to say that once conviction is set aside, the fine amount recovered has to be refunded. The order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge that because there is not specific direction for refund of fine amount in the order of the High Court acquitting the accused, the fine amount paid could not be refunded is untenable and cannot be sustained.