Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The sole question which arises for the consideration of this Court is that whether warrants of recovery can be issued for the recovery of fine and coercive measures can be initiated in pursuance thereof, when the petitioner is ready and willing to undergo the sentence imposed on him, in default of payment of fine.

Before proceeding any further, it would be pertinent to mention that this question stands conclusively answered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhola Ram v. State of Punjab, 2009(5) R.C.R. (Criminal) 485. In that case also, the petitioner had been convicted under Section 18 of the 1985 Act. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay a fine of rupees one lakh. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was required to undergo imprisonment of two years. For recovering fine, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, asked the Collector, Barnala, to recover the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- of fine, as arrears of land revenue and in pursuance thereof the Collector had attached the entire land of the petitioner. Whether the same could be done, when the petitioner was undergoing his sentence reference was made by this Court to the provisions of Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as under:

(b) Issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorizing him to realize the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both of the defaulters :
Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under Section 357."(Emphasis supplied). In view of the proviso to section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was held as under:
"A perusal of proviso to Section 421(1) Cr.P.C. makes it obvious that if an offender has undergone the whole of imprisonment imposed in lieu of the fine on account of default, no Court could issue warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any immovable or movable property belonging to such an offender. It is only for special reason to be recorded in writing that such a warrant for the levy of amount could be issued. The intention of the legislature as reflected in the aforementioned proviso clearly is that the stage for issuing warrant for levy of the amount by attachment and sale or issuance of warrant to the Collector to realize the amount as arrears of land revenue would reach only when the offender has opted either to pay fine or to serve sentence. Such an option could be exercised only when the offender has undergone the substantive sentence. He may end up paying fine at that stage or he may opt for serving sentence. Such an interpretation deserves to be preferred because it leans toward protecting the life and personal liberty of a person, which can be deprived of only according to procedure established by law as envisaged by Article 21 of the Constitution."
i) As per the custody certificate placed on record, the petitioner had undergone a total sentence of five years, five months and seventeen days as on 21.4.2009. After the petitioner undergoes his entire sentence of ten years, he will be at liberty to either pay the fine or undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years in default of payment of fine. In case the petitioner opts not to undergo the imprisonment in default of payment of fine, the trial Court would be at a liberty to initiate the process for recovery under Section 421 of the code of criminal procedure.