Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 61362
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Dias, J
Sathyakumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 6448 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C. Dheeraj Rajan, Anand Kalyanakrishnan, Libin Varghese
For the Respondents: Dalbi Emmanuel P.
Imprisonment in default of payment of fine is a penalty, not a substantive sentence; therefore, it cannot be ordered to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially when cases arise from different transactions and different complainants.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Sentence - Imprisonment in default of fine - Nature of penalty - Imprisonment in default of payment of fine is a penalty incurred on account of non-payment and not a 'sentence' as contemplated under Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 6, 16, 19)
(B) Concurrent Sentences - Section 427 CrPC - Application to default sentences - The power to order concurrent sentences under Section 427(1) applies only to substantive sentences and not to sentences awarded in default of payment of fine or compensation. (Para 6, 20)
(C) Jurisdiction - Section 482 CrPC - Separate application for concurrency - A separate application under Section 482 for concurrent sentences is not maintainable if the provision was not invoked during the original trial or appeal. (Para 8)
Issues: Whether imprisonment awarded in default of payment of fine can be ordered to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.01.2023 IN Crl.A NO.238 OF 2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR / III ADDITIONAL MACT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.10.2016 IN ST NO.234 OF 2015 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,THRISSUR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 10.08.2026, THE COURT ON 17.09.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
C.S.DIAS,J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl. M.C.No. 6448 of 2026
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2026
O R D E R
The petitioner was the accused in S.T.Nos.206/2014,74/2015, 151/2015 and 234/2015 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur ('Trial Court', for brevity), which were filed by the respondents 3 to 6, respectively, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act', in short). The Trial Court, by Annexures A1, A3, A5 and A7 judgments, convicted the petitioner in all the four complaints and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay the cheque amount in each complaint as fine and imposed a default sentence for two months in the first complaint, three months in the second complaint, five months in the third complaint and three months in the fourth complaint.
Although the petitioner filed Crl.Appeal Nos.63/2015, 96/2015, 101/2016 and 238/2016, respectively, challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him as per the above judgments, the Court of Sessions, Thrissur ('Appellate Court', in short), by Annexures A2, A4, A6 and A8 judgments dismissed the appeals confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner. The judgments have attained finality. According to the petitioner, he does not have the financial capacity to pay the fine amount imposed on him. The petitioner is undergoing the default sentence for the last 2 months and 11 days, as on 19.07.2026, as evidenced by Annexure A9 imprisonment certificate issued by the 2nd respondent. It is well settled that the default sentence cannot run concurrently. Even if the petitioner undergoes the default sentence, the fine amount may still be recovered from him. If the petitioner undergoes the default sentence consecutively, he will be in jail for more than one year. The petitioner is also unable to file revisions petitions due to financial distress. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sanjay Vasudeva v. State of NCT of Delhi and Another [(2025 SCC OnLine Del.6733] has held that it is unjust and disproportionate to keep an accused incarcerated for default of payment of fine. The same view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in Cyrus Noshirwan Kartak v. State of Maharashtra and another [2026 SCC Online Bom. 2921]. In the above circumstances, this Court may order the set off of the sentences awarded in default of payment of compensation in all the complaints, to the period of sentence that the petitioner has already undergone, and direct the 2nd respondent to forthwith release the petitioner.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Undisputedly, the conviction and sentence imposedon the petitioner as per Annexures A1, A3, A5 and A7 judgments have attained finality. The petitioner has been ordered to undergo a substantive sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court in each case, and pay the cheque amount in each case as fine, and on realisation of the amount to be paid to respondents 3 to 6, and in default of payment, ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a total period of 13 months.
4. The petitioner's prayer is that the default sentencesimposed on him in the four cases may be ordered to run concurrently. As the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for 2 months and 11 days, as on 19.07.2026, the remaining period of the defa
