Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)
Jagtar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 17 November, 1980 cites

Ram Dayal Tewari vs Corporation Of Calcutta on 26 February, 1952

This provision refers to an order made by a Criminal Court for the payment of money but which is not a punishment inflicted on an offender for a criminal offence. For example, formerly Sub-section (4) of Section 514 of the Code (old) provided that if such penalty is not paid and the same cannot be recovered by attachment and sale of the property, the person so bound shall be liable to imprisonment in civil jail for a term which may extend to six months. Another such illustration is to be found in Sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Code (new) providing for imposition of sentence of imprisonment in default of the compliance of the order for payment of maintenance to the wife. As said above, in Section 446 of the Code (new) the provision for the imprisonment of the person who defaulted in paying the penalty was not repeated. In the absence thereof, the provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 424 of the Code (new) cannot be invoked. Support to this view is to be found in Ram Dayal Tiwari v. Corporation of Calcutta . The corresponding provision was then in Section 388(2) of the Code (old), In paragraph 8 of the report at page 77, the learned Judges observed:
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1