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

2008 Supreme(Ker) 442

R.BASANT
K. Narayanan Nambiar – Appellant
Versus
A. M. Mathew – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioners:T.G. Rajendran, Advocate. For the Respondents: Gikku Jacob, Public Prosecutor.

Judgment :

Does the provisions for set off in Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to a sentence imposed for default in payment of compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in Hari Kishan & State of Haryana V. Sukhbir Singh (AIR 1988 SC 2127) and Suganthi Suresh v. Jagdeeshan (AIR 2002 SC 681)? Do the words “not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine” introduced in Section 428 Cr.P.C. by Act 45 of 1978 w.e.f. 112.1978 take in a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation” Are deemed fines not fines stricto senso also included in the sweep of the expression “fine” in the portion introduced by amendment in 1978? These are the interesting questions that are thrown up for consideration.

2. To the crucially relevant facts first. The petitioner faced indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced on 29.06.1996. During the pendency of that prosecution, he had undergone imprisonment as an under trial from 02.02.96 to 26.04.96. The learned Magistrate sentenced him to undergo substantive sentence of R.I. for a period of
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top