Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The documents indicate that the convict is the owner of the said immoveable property.
In the light of the fact that the present application is in the nature of recovery under Section 421 Cr.P.C. qua the amount of fine/compensation payable by the convict to the complainant as per the order of sentence, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to direct appropriate action for recovery of fine in accordance with Section 421(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. out of the immoveable property registered in the name of Kari Lal Yadav S/o Anant Lal Yadav, measuring 418.66 Sq. Yards, Book No.I, Volume No.46 at pages 564 to 571, bearing token No.3487/2016, situated in Mauza Dhabauli, P.S. Pathar Ghat, Tehsil Saur Bazar, District Saharsa, Bihar. Let a warrant of attachment of the said immoveable property be issued to the concerned Collector/Deputy Commissioner as well as to the concerned SDM of District Saharsa, Bihar.
d. The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark judgment of Kumaran v. State of Kerala (supra), explicitly affirmed this principle. The Court observed that Section 421 Cr.P.C. provides for recovery of fine even after the sentence of imprisonment in default has been undergone. The rationale is manifest: the fine and the imprisonment in default are not mutually exclusive alternatives, but rather complementary mechanisms to ensure compliance with the court's order.

7. The Question of Limitation a. It is argued by the revisionist that the application for recovery is barred by limitation, as no application was made within the Kari Yadav Vs. Dinesh Singh period of three years under the Limitation Act. This argument, while superficially attractive, collapses upon scrutiny. b. The Limitation Act applies to actions and applications of a civil nature. An application under Section 421 Cr.P.C. is not an action for the recovery of debt or money in the civil sense; rather, it is the court's exercise of its inherent duty to give effect to its own orders. The execution of a criminal sentence is not subject to limitation in the manner that execution of a civil decree is. Indeed, the doctrine of laches or limitation finds no application where the court is performing its duty to enforce the sentence.

8. Maintainability of the Application: The Absence of Explicit Recovery Rights a. The revisionist has made much of the fact that the original order of sentence contains no explicit direction granting recovery rights to the complainant under Section 421 or 431 Cr.P.C. This contention, while superficially technical, is devoid of legal merit.

b. The authority to recover a fine does not require an explicit direction in the sentence order. Section 421 Cr.P.C. is itself a substantive law conferring the power of recovery. It operates independently and automatically upon the imposition of a fine. To require that the trial court explicitly invoke Sections 421 in the sentence order would be to read into the statute a condition that does not exist in its text.