SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 436

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.
Chandran – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. M.C. No.2367 of 2020
Decided on : 20-03-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.B. Arunkumar
For the Respondent: Government Pleader (C.K. Prasad)

Imprisonment in default of payment of fine is not a sentence, and therefore S.427(1) of the Code does not apply to such imprisonment.

Headnote:

imprisonment in default of payment of fine - Criminal Procedure - S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S.30(1) and S.30(2) of the Code, S.64 and S.68 of the Indian Penal Code - The court discussed the application of S.427(1) of the Code to imprisonment in default of payment of fine, emphasizing that imprisonment in default of payment of fine is not a sentence and therefore S.427(1) does not apply. The court cited precedents to support this interpretation and concluded that the prayer for concurrent running of sentences cannot be allowed.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was convicted for offences under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in three cases and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay fines, with default of payment leading to simple imprisonment. The petitioner filed a petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. seeking that the imprisonment awarded in the three cases, in default of payment of fine, may be ordered to run concurrently.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the provisions of S.427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and other relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Code, and concluded that the prayer made in the petition cannot be allowed. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Issues: The main issue was whether imprisonment in default of payment of fine awarded on an accused in a case can be ordered to run concurrently with imprisonment in default of payment of fine awarded on him in other cases.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that imprisonment in default of payment of fine is not a sentence and therefore S.427(1) of the Code does not apply to such imprisonment. The court cited precedents to support this interpretation.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.

ORDER :

The question that arises for consideration in this petition is, whether imprisonment in default of payment of fine awarded on an accused in a case can be ordered to run concurrently with imprisonment in default of payment of fine awarded on him in other cases.

2. The petitioner is the accused in the cases S.T.Nos.68/2019, 69/2019 and 70/2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Nadapuram.

3. The aforesaid cases were instituted upon the complaints filed against the petitioner by different persons for an offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

4. The petitioner was absconding in the aforesaid cases. The cases had been entered into the register of long pending cases. On 24.01.2019, the petitioner appeared in the trial court and he pleaded guilty to the offence alleged against him in all the three cases. The learned Magistrate found that the plea was voluntarily made by the petitioner and accepted it.

5. Learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in all the three cases. In the case S.T.No.68/2019, the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.1,90,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. In the case S.T.No.69/2019, the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.26,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. In the case S.T.No.70/2019, the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. In all the three cases, learned Magistrate directed that, if the fine amount was realised, it shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.

6. This petition is filed under S.482 Cr.P.C. by the accused praying that the imprisonment awarded to him in the three cases, in default of payment of fine, may be ordered to run concurrently.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

8. Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) provides that, when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.

9. Sub-section (1) of S.427 of the Code provides for the situation when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment. Then, ordinarily, the subsequent sentence of imprisonment would commence at the expiration of the first term of imprisonment, unless the Court directs the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence.

10. It is manifest from S.427(1) of the Code that the Court has the power and the discretion to issue a direction that the subsequent sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently with the previous sentence of imprisonment. But, in the very nature of the power so conferred upon the Court, the discretionary power shall have to be exercised along judicial lines and not in a mechanical or pedantic manner. The legal position favours exercise of discretion to the benefit of the prisoner in cases where the prosecution is based on a single transaction.

11. In the case of the petitioner, the three cases arise out of three different transactions. The complainant in the three cases are also different persons.

12. The more important question is whether the provision contained in S.427(1) of the Code has application to imprisonment in default of payment of fine awarded to an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top