Back
ATTORNEY GENERAL v. VALLIPURAM
NLR52V551
1951 Present: de Silva
J. ,
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Appellant, and VALLIPURAM",."
Respondent
S. C. 672-Application for revision in M. C. Mallakam, 8,450
Sentence-Fine and
imprisonment-Execution-Order of sequence-Criminal Procedure Code. ss. 312 (f)
and (g), 321.
When a person is sentenced (i) to pay a fine and, in default of payment of the
fine, to undergo imprisonment, and (ii) to undergo imprisonment for a certain
term, the substantive term of imprisonment should commence first and,
thereafter, if he has not by that time paid the fine, the default term of
imprisonment should begin.
APPLICATION
to revise an order of the Magistrate's
Court, Mallakam.
A. Mahendrarajah, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Accused-respondent in person.
February 15, 1951. DE SILVA J.-
This matter comes up on application made by the Attorney-General. In the
petition filed the Attorney-General has set out the facts.
The facts in short, are these: The accused-respondent was convicted in M. C.
Mallakam 8,449 on 80th August, 1949, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 750 and
in default of payment of the fine to undergo six weeks' rigorous imprisonment.
The accused not having paid the fine underwent the term of six weeks' rigorous
imprisonment, which was completed on the 5th October, 1949. On the 20th
September, 1949, before the expiry of the sentence in M. C. Mallakam 8,449
accused was sentenced in M. C. Mallakam 8,450 to pay a fine of Rs. 15, in
default of payment of the fine to undergo two weeks' rigorous imprisonment, and,
to two years' rigorous imprisonment and two years' police supervision. So that
whatever term of imprisonment was ordered in M. C. Mallakam 8,450 would have had
to commence after the expiry of the term of imprisonment imposed in M. C.
Mallakam 8,449-vide Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the 9th
October, 1950, the accused applied to the Superintendent of the Mahara Prison
for the withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 15.20 out of money belonging to the accused
which was with the Jailor and the Superintendent approved the application. Money
Order No. 004365 for the sum of Rs. 15 was forwarded together with letter dated
10th October, 1950, to the Magistrate, Mallakam, by M. M. Akbar, Jailor, in
payment of the fins imposed upon the accused in M. C. Mallakam 8,450. The
Magistrate by his letter dated 19th October, 1950, informed the Superintendent,
Mahara Prison that the default sentence in respect of the fine in M. C. Mallakam
8,450 had already been served and returned the Money Order to the
Superintendent. The Magistrate's contention appears to be that by the time the
Money Order was received by him the default sentence of two
weeks' had already been served by
the accused and as such there was no point in accepting the Rs. 15 in default of
payment of which the man had already served the term of two weeks' rigorous
imprisonment. The Superintendent of Mahara Prison appears to have directed the
letter dated 24th October, 1950, to the Magistrate submitting his view of the
matter. To that the Magistrate replied by letter dated 20th November, 1950, in
which he has inter alia stated as follows: "In the order of sequence he would
have to serve (1) the six weeks' imposed in Case No. 8,449, (2) the two weeks'
imposed in default in Case No. 8,450 and finally (8) the two years' addition
imposed under the Prevention of Crimes Ordinance."
Now the point that arises for consideration is in what order the punishments
imposed by the Magistrate in Case No. 8,450 should be inflicted on the accused.
If the fine which formed part of the punishment in Case No. 8,450 in default of
which the term of imprisonment of two weeks' was to be served was also part of
the punishment that had to be served by the accused, then the learned
Magistrate's contention certainly would be correct. But it is argued by the
learned Crown Counsel that of the two punishments imposed
