9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Review of Sessions Judge's order refusing to withdraw a warrant under Section 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Analysis: The applicant, who had been convicted of offenses in 1930 and sentenced to imprisonment and fines, sought the withdrawal of a warrant issued for the recovery of the fine under Section 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The warrant was sent for execution to recover a part of the fine while the applicant was in prison. Upon the applicant's release in 1934, he requested the withdrawal of the warrant, relying on the proviso to Section 386(1) which restricts the issuance of a warrant after the offender has served the sentence in default of payment of the fine unless special reasons exist. The Court noted that the proviso does not mandate the withdrawal of an already issued warrant but emphasized the policy that an offender should not be required to pay the fine and serve the default sentence. Special reasons justifying the issuance of a warrant after the default sentence include situations where the fine was not recovered earlier due to reasons such as lack of information about the property or inheritance post-sentence. In this case, the Court found special reasons to uphold the warrant as steps had been taken to enforce it before the default sentence was served, and the delay was not due to authorities' negligence. The Judge's reasons based on the seriousness of the offense and fine allocation were deemed irrelevant as they did not explain the delay in fine recovery before the default sentence was served. Consequently, the application for withdrawal of the warrant was refused. Separate Judgment by N.J. Wadia, J.: Justice N.J. Wadia concurred with the decision, indicating agreement with the analysis and conclusion reached by Justice J.W.F. Beaumont.
|
