9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Legality of consecutive sentences without specifying the order. 2. Requirement of imposing a fine in addition to imprisonment under Section 325 of the Penal Code. Analysis: Issue 1: Legality of consecutive sentences without specifying the order The revision application challenged the appellate order of the Third Assistant Sessions Judge, which set aside the sentences imposed by the Magistrate on two accused persons. The Judge found the Magistrate's order to be flawed as the sentences under different sections were directed to run consecutively without specifying the order. The Judge relied on Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a Calcutta High Court decision to support this view. However, the High Court Judge disagreed with this reasoning. The High Court Judge emphasized that in cases where one of the sentences is life imprisonment, specifying the order is necessary. Still, in this case, where the sentences were for one month or three months of rigorous imprisonment, the order in which they run is immaterial. The failure of the Magistrate to specify the order was deemed inconsequential, and the appellate Court could have directed the order if necessary. Therefore, the High Court held that the consecutive sentences were not illegal solely due to the lack of a specified order. Issue 2: Requirement of imposing a fine under Section 325 of the Penal Code The appellate Judge also found fault with the sentence imposed under Section 325 of the Penal Code, as no fine was imposed along with the term of imprisonment. The Judge interpreted the provision as mandating the imposition of a fine in addition to imprisonment. Citing a decision of the Patna High Court, the Judge concluded that a fine was compulsory upon conviction under Section 325. However, the High Court Judge disagreed with this interpretation. The High Court pointed out that the provision stating "shall also be liable to fine" is not indicative of a mandatory fine but rather signifies a liability to fine. The High Court highlighted that similar expressions are present in other sections of the Penal Code where a fine is not mandatory. The Judge clarified that the discretion to impose a fine in addition to imprisonment is left to the Court for offenses where imprisonment is compulsory. Therefore, the High Court held that the imposition of a fine was not obligatory in every case of conviction under Section 325. In conclusion, the High Court set aside the appellate order and remanded the case for rehearing, emphasizing that the consecutive sentences were not illegal due to the lack of a specified order and that the imposition of a fine was not mandatory under Section 325 of the Penal Code.
|
