Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

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.

11.The Extinguishment of Liability Through Suffering Default Imprisonment a. This is perhaps the most crucial argument, and it strikes at the heart of the revisionist's case. The revisionist contends that by undergoing the sentence of three months' imprisonment in default of payment of fine, he has thereby extinguished his liability to pay the fine itself.

b. This argument is manifestly incorrect and is contradicted by the express language of Section 421 Cr.P.C. The section does not provide that imprisonment in default shall extinguish the obligation to pay fine; rather, it provides that the fine shall be recoverable even after such imprisonment has been undergone.

Kari Yadav Vs. Dinesh Singh i. Section 421 Cr.P.C. provides for recovery of fine even after the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment has been undergone. The section does not terminate the obligation to pay fine; it merely defers its enforcement during the period of imprisonment.

ii. The fine and the sentence of imprisonment in default are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Rather, they are complementary mechanisms designed to ensure compliance with the court's order.