Court clarified that default sentences for non-payment of fines cannot run concurrently and should consider the offender's financial capacity.

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Delay in filing Special Leave Petition condoned. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the decision dated 17.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.906 of 2006 affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant (original accused No.6) for offences Reason:

punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) as well as the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the MCOC Act). Since the emphasis in the present appeal was placed on the nature of default sentences passed against the appellant, we confine ourselves to bare outline of facts. The appellant along with other co-accused was tried and convicted by the Special Judge [the MCOC Act] Thane in M.C.O.C. Special Case No.3 of 2002 vide judgment dated 20.10.2005. The relevant portion of the order of sentence passed by the Special Judge reads as under:-

“Accused Nos.1 to 6 namely, Sanjay Kisan Mohite, Sudish Maniken, Maniken Nair, Pramod Shankar Jadhav, Santosh Manohar Deshmukh, Chandrakant Balkrishna Shegde and Sharad Hiru Kolambe are convicted for offence punishable under Section 364A of Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default to suffer imprisonment for three months.

The accused Nos.1 to 6 are convicted for offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default, to suffer imprisonment for three months.

The accused Nos.1 to 6 are convicted for offence punishable under Section 397 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default, to suffer imprisonment for three months.

The accused Nos.1 to 6 are convicted for offence punishable under Section 387 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default, to suffer imprisonment for three months.

The accused Nos.1 to 6 are convicted for offence punishable under Section 342 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one year.

The accused Nos.1 to 6 are convicted for offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(ii) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lacs) each. In default, to suffer imprisonment for three years.

The accused Nos.1 to 6 are convicted for offence punishable under Section 3 (2) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) each. In default, to suffer imprisonment for three years.

The accused Nos.1 to 6 are convicted for offence punishable under Section 3 (4) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) each. In default, to suffer imprisonment for three years.

All the sentences shall run concurrently.

The accused persons are entitled for set off under Section 428 of the Criminal P.C. for pretrial detention period.

Accused No.7 Avinash Shrikrishna Dugad and accused No.8 Tanaji Nanu Birade are acquitted of all the offences.

Their bail bonds stand cancelled.”

3. The decision so rendered by the Special Judge was questioned by all the convicted accused by filing criminal a