9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether a fine imposed by a criminal court upon a convict can be realized more than six years after the date of the sentence if the appellate or revisional court has stayed or suspended the collection of the fine. Analysis: The case involved the interpretation of Section 70 of the Indian Penal Code regarding the levy of fines by the State. The appellant had been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine in 1964. More than six years later, the State attempted to levy the fine, prompting the appellant to challenge the order in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. The High Court refused to quash the levy proceedings, citing that the appellant had obtained a suspension of the fine during the appeal against the conviction and sentence, including the fine. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Section 70 of the IPC, which allows the levy of unpaid fines within six years of the sentence. The Court noted that the period of limitation starts from the date of the sentence imposed by the trial court and does not contemplate the stay or suspension of the sentence by a higher court. However, in cases where the appellate court suspends the sentence of fine, the period of suspension should be excluded from the calculation of the six-year period. The Court emphasized that when a party secures a stay of fine collection, it cannot claim that the fine has become irrecoverable due to the stay. The judicial process cannot be used to defy judicial orders, and the appellant, who benefited from the suspension of the fine, cannot later argue against its recoverability. Therefore, the Court held that the State was within time to levy the fine under Section 70 of the IPC, and the appellant's contention lacked merit. Additionally, the Court clarified that Section 70 requires the State to initiate proceedings for the realization of fines within six years, not necessarily complete the process within that timeframe. If the fine becomes unenforceable due to a higher court's order suspending its levy, the period of limitation does not commence under Section 70. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision, and emphasized that the State must commence recovery proceedings within six years of the sentence, even if the actual realization may extend beyond that period. The judgment underscored the importance of interpreting Section 70 in a common-sense manner and ensuring that legal orders are not used to defeat the purpose of the law.
|
