The High Court dismissed the challenge to an order imposing a fine deposit condition. It relied on Supreme Court precedents to quash an order calling for fine deposit during appeal and allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition.
The condition to deposit the fine amount was set aside and the impugned order dated 2.2.2017 was quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 930 / 2017
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Shekhawat PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment / Order
28/02/2017
The petitioner has filed this Criminal Misc. Petition challenging the impugned order dated. 2.2.2017 passed by District and Session Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur, Jaipur in Criminal Misc. Petition No.6/2017 Jagdish Meena and other Vs. State of Rajasthan to the extent of imposing condition to deposit the amount of fine imposed by the Learned Trial Court vide order dated 6.01.2017 within a period of one month.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the precedent law in the case of Dilip S. Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr. Reported in 2007 Volume 1 page 664.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in this precedent law has held
as follows:
6.We have noticed hereinbefore the
sentence imposed upon the accused. It was submitted that a conjoint reading of Section 357 read with Sections 421 and 424 of the Code would clearly go to show that it is permissible for a Court to direct recovery of fine forthwith and if it is to be held that recovery of fine is automatically stayed, Section 421 and 424 of the Code would become nugatory.The Act is a special statute. Section 138(1) thereof provides for imposition of sentence upto two years or a fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both.
Before embarking upon the rival contentions raised by the parties, we may notice the relevant provisions of the Code :
"357. Order to pay compensation. (1) When a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part, the Court may, when passing judgment order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied-
(b) in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such person in a Civil Court;
(3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced.
"421. Warrant for levy of fine. (1) When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may-
(a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender;
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."
"431. Money ordered to be paid recoverable as a fine. Any money (other than a fine) payable by virtue of any order made under this Code, and the method of recovery of which is not otherwise expressly provided for, shall be recoverable as if it were a fine:"
"439. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. (1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct-
(a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in
sub-section (3) of Section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section;
(b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified:
Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice.
(2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody."
It is, therefore, apparent that if a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence or where it forms a part thereof, the Court is entitled to direct that whole or any part of the fine recovered, to be applied to in respect of the factors enumerated in clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d). Section 421 of the Code deals with the mode and manner in which the fine levied is to be recovered. Section 424deals with the steps required to be taken by the Court where the amount of fine has not been paid forthwith. Section 357 deals with two types of cases, namely, (i) where only a sentence has been imposed; and (ii) where fine also forms part of the sentence. When a fine is imposed simplicitor Section 421 read with Section 424 would be applicable but where fine forms part of the sentence, it would not have any application.
Counsel for the petitioner has also referred judgment of
this Court passed in Jagdish @ Jagia Vs. The State of Rajasthan in S.B. Crl. Misc. Bail Appli. No.6877 of 2011; decided on 21.09.2011
reported in 2012 Volume 2 CJ (Cri) (Raj.) page-1000 whereby the relevant portion is as follows:
Learned Public Prosecutor has stated that there is no
bar of imposing any condition under section 389 of Cr.P.C. and therefore it was well withing the domain of the learned Court below to impose the condition of deposition of the fine.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties this court is of the opinion, that the controversy is fairly covered by the precedent law submitted by the counsel for the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the condition to deposit the amount of fine imposed by the Learned Trial Court vide order dated 6.01.2017 is set aside. Order dated 02.02.2017 passed by Learned District and Session Judge, Jaipur, District Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.6/2017 Jagdish Meena & Anr. Vs State is quashed and set aside.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.
Jailendra/77
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a High Court can direct that while suspending a sentence on appeal, the accused shall not be made to deposit the fine amount.
Whether imposing a condition to deposit fine is barred under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dilip S. Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr.Relied on¶16
Dilip S. Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2007 Volume 1 page 664
Jagdish @ Jagia Vs. The State of RajasthanRelied on¶39
Jagdish @ Jagia Vs. The State of Rajasthan in S.B. Crl. Misc. Bail Appli. No.6877 of 2011 reported in 2012 Volume 2 CJ (Cri) (Raj.) page-1000
2 provisions across 1 enactments
JAGDISH S/O SUJI LAL MEENA
ANANDI LAL S/O GULLA RAM MEENA
STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH P.P.
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
