ORDER :

1. While disposing of Criminal Appeal No.897 of 2011, the High Court had directed as under:

“(a) The judgment and order of conviction convicting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act stands confirmed.

(b) The judgment and order of acquittal acquitting accused No.2 to 7 for the offences with which they were charged stands confirmed.

(c) The judgment and order of acquittal acquitting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC stands confirmed.

(d) Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of

Rs.2,65,000/-for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(e) Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of

Rs.2,00,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC.

(f) In default of payment of fine of Rs.2,65,000/- as mentioned supra, accused No.1 shall undergo further imprisonment for four years. In default of payment of Rs.2,00,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC as mentioned supra, accused No.1 shall undergo further imprisonment for two years.

(g) The sentence of imprisonment as imposed supra shall run concurrently.

(h) The period of imprisonment already undergone by accused No.1 shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.”

2. Thus, the appellant stood convicted under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘DP Act’, for short) and also under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one year each on said counts. The sentences were to run concurrently.

3. In respect of aforesaid counts, fine was also imposed in the sums of Rs.2,65,000/-for the offences under the DP Act and Rs.2,00,000/-for the offence under the IPC Act and the default sentence was to the tune of four years and two years respectively.

4. The challenge to the aforesaid conviction and sentence was dealt with by this Court in its order dated 10.02.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.276 of 2017, by which time the appellant had completed eight months of actual imprisonment. The substantive sentence under the aforesaid counts was reduced by this Court to the period already undergone while the other elements of sentence, namely, imposition of fine and default sentence were maintained by this Court.

5. In this review petition, the principal contention is that in terms of Section 65 IPC, the default sentence could not be more than 1/4th of the maximum sentence prescribed in connection with the offences in question. It is submitted that maximum default sentence for the aforesaid offences could at best be 36 months and that the appellant has actually undergone sentence more than 4½ years.

6. Notice was issued on the review petition on 12.01.2021 and it was directed to be listed in open Court on 18.01.2021. It was also directed that the appellant be released on interim bail.

7. We have heard Mr. D.L. Chidananda, learned Advocate in support of the petition and Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned Advocate for the State.

8. The mandate of Section 65 IPC is absolutely clear and no default sentence can be awarded in excess of 1/4th of the maximum punishment prescribed for a concerned offence. Mr. D.L. Chidananda, learned Advocate is, therefore, right in his submission that maximum sentence in respect of the aforesaid two sets of offences could, at best, be 36 months.

10. In the circumstances, we not only allow this Review Petition and restore the Criminal Appeal but also proceed to allow the appeal insofar as the default sentences awarded by the High Court are concerned and direct that the default sentence in respect of the offences punishable:

(1) under Section 498(A) IPC;

(2) under Section 3 of the DP Act

(3) under Section 4 of the DP Act and

(4) under Section 6 of the DP Actshall be 9 months, 15 months, 6 months and 6 months

respectively.

11. Since the appellant has