Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 12662
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
B.Pugalendhi, J
A.R.Muthukrishnan – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, CBI/SCB, Chennai – Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1136 of 2025 | Crl.M.P.(MD)No.774 of 2025 | R.C.No.4(s) of 1994 | C.C.No.4 of 1998 | Crl.A.Nos.714 to 716 of 2003
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.Robinson
For the Respondents: Mr.N.Mohideen Basha Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases
A distress warrant may be quashed when a petitioner has completed their sentence and default time imposed by the court.
Headnote:Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita allows quashing of distress warrants. The petitioner, previously convicted and sentenced for multiple offences, has served his sentence and default period. Court found the right to quash the warrant established by completion of sentences. The main question is whether the distress warrant for non-payment of fines should be upheld or quashed. The court reasoned that since the petitioner completed his sentence and default time, forcing payment via distress warrant is inappropriate. The warrant dated 06.09.2024 is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal dispute regarding distress warrant. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner’s completion of sentence and implications. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's ruling on the distress warrant. (Para 5) |
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed as against the distress warrant issued by the learned II Additional District Judge (CBI Cases), Madurai, in R.C.No.4(S) of 1994 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBI/SCB/Chennai, which was tried in C.C.No.4 of 1998. The distress warrant is a warrant to levy a fine by attachment of property and sale.
2. The petitioner was found guilty in C.C.No.4 of 1998 by the learned II Additional District Judge (CBI Cases), Madurai, by its Judgment dated 27.12.2002 and he was convicted and sentenced as follows:
(i) for the offence under Sections 120-B r/w. 420, 467, 468, 471 and
381 IPC, to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
(ii) for the offence under Section 420 IPC, to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.
3. Apart from that, the petitioner was also tried in C.C.Nos.5 and 6 of
1998. As against the Judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeals in Crl.A.Nos.714 to 716 of 2003, which were dismissed by this Court on 05.02.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2239 of 2012 seeking to pass orders to run the sentence concurrently in all three cases. The said petition was allowed by this Court on 12.06.2014 and the sentences imposed in C.C.Nos.4 to 6 of 1998 were ordered to run concurrently.
4. It is reported that the petitioner has already completed the sentence period and he was in jail for nearly 12 years. In the event, if the petitioner has not paid the fine amount imposed by the trial Court, the default sentence for non-payment of fine amount is only one year. The petitioner has also undergone the default sentence period. However, the impugned distress warrant was issued against the petitioner for non-payment of the fine amount.
5. Considering the fact that the petitioner already underwent the sentence period of 12 years and also underwent the default sentence for non-payment of the fine amount, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the impugned Distress Warrant dated 06.09.2024 issued by the II Additional District Judge (CBI Cases), Madurai, is hereby set aside.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.03.2025 ogy NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No.
To
1. The II Additional District Judge (CBI Cases), Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police, CBI/SCB, Chennai.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
03.03.2025
