Back
Allahbad High Court
G.C.MATHUR
Paras Nath - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 07/28/1967
CONTEMPT OF COURT - SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE - REMISSION OF SENTENCE - POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT - SECTION 401 CR. P. C. - SECTION 64, 68 AND 69 I. P. C. - SECTION 386(1) CR. P. C. - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - HELD, SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE IS NOT PUNISHMENT FOR THE OFFENCE BUT FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE FINE - STATE GOVERNMENT HAS NO POWER TO REMIT SUCH SENTENCE UNDER SECTION 401 CR. P. C. - APPLICANTS NOT HAVING UNDERGONE THE WHOLE OF THE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT AWARDED TO THEM IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF THE FINE, WARRANTS FOR REALISATION OF THE FINES WERE LEGALLY ISSUED.
Fact of the Case:
27 applicants, members of the Samyukt Socialist Party of India, interrupted judicial proceedings in the court of the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gyanpur, Varanasi, during the Food Agitation. They were convicted for contempt of court and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 each, with imprisonment in default of payment. After serving a portion of the sentence, they were released under an order passed by the State Government under Section 401 Cr. P. C. remitting the unexpired period of substantive sentence of imprisonment and sentence in lieu of fine. The Magistrate issued fresh warrants for realization of the fines, which were challenged by the applicants.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine is not punishment for the offence but for failure to pay the fine, and that the State Government has no power to remit such sentence under Section 401 Cr. P. C. The court further held that the applicants had not undergone the whole of the term of imprisonment awarded to them in default of payment of the fine, and that the warrants for realization of the fines were therefore legally issued.
Issues: 1. Whether a fine can still be recovered after the defaulter has undergone the whole of the imprisonment awarded in default of payment of the fine. 2. Whether the State Government has the power to remit a sentence of imprisonment awarded in default of payment of fine under Section 401 Cr. P. C. 3. Whether the applicants have, in fact and law, undergone the period of 15 days' imprisonment awarded to them in default of payment of the fine.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Sections 64, 68, 69 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 386(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to hold that the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine is not punishment for the offence but for failure to pay the fine, and that such sentence can be recovered even after the defaulter has undergone the whole of the imprisonment awarded in default of payment of the fine. 2. The court interpreted Section 401(1) Cr. P. C. to hold that the State Government has no power to remit a sentence of imprisonment awarded in default of payment of fine. 3. The court held that the applicants had not undergone the whole of the term of imprisonment awarded to them in default of payment of the fine, as the order of the State Government remitting the remaining period of the sentence was beyond the powers of the State Government and was illegal.
Final Decision: The revision application was dismissed and the stay order dated October 21, 1965, was vacated.
"The Government remits under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, unexpired period of substantive sentence of imprisonment and sentence in lieu of fine of such prisoners who were convicted in Food Agitation during August and September, 1964, and whose unexpired period pertains to substantive sentence of imprisonment and sentence in lieu of fine remains to be served for one month or less on 2nd October, 1964, and direct their release on Gandhi Jayanti on 2nd October, 1964."
On the release of the applicants, the learned Magistrate withdrew the warrants for realisation of fines which had been issued. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate referred the matter regarding the realisation of fines to the State Government and was ultimately informed that the fines had not been remitted. He accordingly issued fresh warrants for realisation of the fines. On March 19, 1965, an application was filed by the applicants before the learned Magistrate, contending that, since the remaining sentence of imprisonment had been remitted, it meant that the sentence of fine had also been remitted by the State Government and prayed that the warrants issued for realisation of the fines be withdrawn. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate on April 6, 1965. Against the order of the learned Magistrate, the applicants filed two revisions before the learned Sessions Judge, Gyanpur. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the State Government had no power under Section 401 Cr. P. C. to remit a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of the fine. He was further of the view that, even if the applicants could be said to have served out the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of the fine, the fine could still be realised as it had not been remitted by the Government. He accordingly dismissed the revisions. The applicants have now come up in revision to this Court.
2. The first question, which arises for consideration in this case, is whether a fine can still be recovered after the defaulter has undergone the whole of the imprisonment awarded in default of payment of the fine. The provisions, which govern imposition of the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of the fine, are sections 64, 68 and 69 of the Indian Penal Code. These Sections stand thus:-
"64. In every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment as well as fine, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, whether with or without imprisonment, and in every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment of fine, or with fine only, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, it shall be competent to the court which sentences such offender to direct by the sentence that, in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a certain term, which imprisonment shall be in excess of any other imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced or to which he may be liable under a commutation of a sentence.
68. The imprisonment which is imposed in default of payment of a fine shall terminate whenever that fine is either paid or levied by process of law.
69. If, before the expiration of the term of imprisonment fixed in default of payment, such
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
