Legality of issuance of warrant for collection of fine amount.

Petitioner is accused in S.T.C.No.709 of 1987 on the file of the Special Judicial Second Class Magistrate (Railways), Jolarpet, North Arcot District.

2. The Inspector of Police, R.P.F., Jolarpet, respondent herein, filed a final report under Sec.173(2), Cr.P.C. against petitioner for an alleged offence under Sec. 108 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (Act IX of 1890 - for short ‘the Act’), which was taken on file in the aforesaid summary trial case.

.3. Accused, when questioned, voluntarily admitted the offence and consequently, he was found guilty for the offence under Sec. 108 of the Act, convicted thereunder and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25, in default to simple imprisonment for two days. Accused did not pay the fine amount. Consequently, he was sent to prison and had undergone simple imprisonment for two days.

4. Since the fine amount remained unpaid, learned Magistrate initiated proceedings under Sec.421(1), Cr.P.C. for collection of the same. It is at this stage, petitioner had come forward with the present action, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to set aside the order so passed by learned Magistrate.

5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that initiation of proceedings for recovery of fine amount is legally not permissible, when especially petitioner had undergone default sentence of imprisonment, inasmuch as collection of fine amount, in such circumstance would amount to imposition of double punishment, as indicated by salient provisions adumbrated under Art.20(2) of the Constitution of India, and therefore it is that recovery proceedings initiated are liable to be set aside.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however repel such submission.

7. To the submission of learned counsel for petitioner, I am unable to affix my seal of approval, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The sentence of imprisonment, in default of payment of fine, is not punishment for the offence for which the offender had been convicted; but is punishment for his failure to pay the fine imposed on him by way of punishment for the offence. What is indicated by Sub-clause (2) of Art.20 of the Constitution is that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

.8. In the case on hand, there is no question of further prosecution and punishment for the same offence. The prosecution and punishment in respect of the offence under Sec. 108 of the Act had been resorted to not more than once. At this juncture, Sub-clause (1) of Art.20 of the Constitution may be referred to and it prescribes that no person shall be convicted of any offence except in violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence; nor be subjected to any penalty greater than that which might not have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.

.9. Petitioner in this case had been admittedly sentenced to a fine of Rs.25 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two days. Sec.67 of the Indian Penal Code deals with case of imprisonment for non-payment of fine when the offence is punishable with fine only and it is as under:

."67. Imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when offence punishable with fine only.-If the offence be punishable with fine only, the imprisonment which the Court imposes in default of payment of the fine shall be simple, and the term for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned, in default of payment of fine, shall not exceed the following scale, that is to say, for any term not exceeding two months when the amount of the fine shall not exceed fifty rupees, and for any term not exceeding four months when the amount shall not exceed one hundred rupees, and for any term not exceeding six months in any other case".

.10. The time limit within which such fine amount imposed is recoverable is indicated in Sec.70 of the Indian Penal Code and it runs as follows:

."70. Fine levi