STATE Vs. AMRU TULSI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a rule obtained by the State against an order passed by Mr. Mehar Singh cha-dha. Additional Sessions Judge of Anibala, dated 81-8-1955, remanding the case to the trial Court after setting aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents. It appears that the learned Judge thought that under Section 381, indian Penal Code, it was mandatory that if a man was convicted he shall be sentenced to imprisonment as also to fine. The State has challenged the view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the question of interpretation of the section and submitted that it is not incumbent on the Judge to impose a fine also.

(2.) THE section under which the opposite party was convicted is 381, Indian Penal code, which runs as under:

(3.) THE words Which have to be interpreted are 'and shall also be liable to fine' and they do not mean that it is necessary that a sentence of fine shall also be imposed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that this would be the meaning of the words. Both the State as well as the opposite party submit that this is not a correct interpretation and that it is not a mandatory pro-Vision of the law and that all it means is that if the Magistrate wants to impose some fine he may do so if he finds the case to be of that nature.