BABULAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the substantive sentence passed against the accused was reduced to the period of already undergone and instead, he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00, in default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo three months imprisonment. This order was passed on 20th March, 1987. The accused did not deposit the money within time and surprisingly even after a notice was issued to him by the Court on 4th May. 1988. The Court, therefore, ordered for issuance of the warrant of arrest for sending him to serve out the sentence imposed in default of payment of fine. The accused appeared before the Court on 9th March, 1989 and offered to deposit the money. The learned Magistrate refused to deposit the money as according to him the time had expired on 20th March, 1988 and, therefore, sent the accused to serve out three months' simple imprisonment, against which this application has been preferred in this Court.

(2.) It appears that the learned Magistrate was not aware of the provisions of Sections 61 to 70 I. P. C. which are the clauses on punishment particularly fine and/or in default of payment of the same. According to Sec. 68 Crimial P.C. imprisonment which is imposed in default of payment of fine terminates as soon as fine is either paid or is recovered/levied by process of law. According to Sec. 69 I.P.C. when an accused is undergoing imprisonment in default of payment of fine even if he pays a part of the amount from the total amount of fine imposed, he has to be given set-off from the total period as there is termination of imprisonment on payment of proportionate payment of fine. Sentence imposed in default of payment of fine has not to be mis-construed and taken as an imprisonment for commission of the offence. It is only a punishment in default of depositing the fine imposed and this punishment/imprisonment is, therefore, co-terminus with the payment of fine. Hence, there is no basis for inferring that since the time granted by the High Court has expired, the fine cannot be deposited. When the High Court grants time, it should not be mistaken that it is putting a bar for realising the fine after the particular date. The point of starting the realisation is deferred till the time is granted because the time to be granted by this Court cannot take away otherwise the rights given to the accused under Sec. 68 I.P.C./69 I.P.C. That would go to the counter to the basic concept on which the chapter about punishment is incorporated in I.P.C. I may incidently mention here also that the provisions of the law is that even if a man has under-gone the imprisonment which was fixed by the court in default of the payment of fine, still the liability of paying the money is not observed and the money can be realised from the assets of the person. Therefore, the imprisonment ordered in default of payment of fine has to be construed differently. It was expected of the learned Magistrate that he should have read the provisions of law before refusing the application. In fact, the accused could have deposited the fine in jail also and possibly the jail authorities also would have intimated the Court regarding depositing the fine. In any eventuality when the accused is ready and willing to deposit the fine, he has to be released forthwith on his depositing the fine.

(3.) Hence, it is directed that moment the accused deposit the amount of Rs. 2,000.00 levied as fine under the order of this Court dated 20-3-87, he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.