Chinnaparaju @ Chinnappan vs State

Janarthanam, J.—The petitioner herein, namely, Chinnapparaju alias Chinnappan was the accused in Sessions Case No. 100 of 1984 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. He faced trial for the alleged offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code. On trial, he was found guilty for the said offence, convicted thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years.

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, he preferred Criminal Appeal No. 478 of 1984 on the file of the second Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, and the appeal so filed also ended in dismal failure, in the sense of the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the trial Court had been confirmed.

The petitioner-accused further agitated the matter by filing Criminal Revision Case No. 457 of 1986 on the file of this court. A learned Judge of this Court, who happened to hear the revision, was pleased to modify the sentence and the operative portion of the order of learned Judge is to the following effect:

Though for an offence of this nature, leniency in sentence, would only amount to misplaced sympathy, now that there is cordiality between P.W.1 and the petitioner, I am satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner back to jail to serve the unexpired portion of sentence. It appears that he has already spent over two months in jail. At the same time, the petitioner has to realise that crime does not pay and towards the end, while confirming the conviction u/s 307 Indian Penal Code and reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, I impose a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). In default of payment of fine, the petitioner will undergo eighteen month is rigorous imprisonment. Time for payment of fine will be three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the trial Court. The fine amount, if collected in its entirety, will be paid to P.W.1 as compensation.

There was a delay in the remittance of the fine amount, as per the directions of a learned Judge of this Court. Consequently, it appears that the petitioner had been arrested and produced before Court and had been detained in prison for undergoing the default sentence.

Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 1572 of 1992 had been filed before this Court on behalf of the petitioner praying for extension of time for payment of fine. When the said petition was listed for hearing, it was pointed out by this Court to learned Counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 68 of the Indian Penal Code, imprisonment, which is imposed in default of payment of fine, shall terminate whenever that fine is paid or levied by process of law.

Understanding the implications of the said provision, learned Counsel for the petitioner - accused made an endorsement on the said petition to the following effect on 24.3.1992:

May be dismissed as withdrawn for the present.

This Court passed an order on that date, dismissing the petition as withdrawn.

Consequently, it appears that on 22.4.1992, the petitioner filed an application before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli u/s 68 of the Indian Penal Code praying for receipt of fine amount as ordered by this Court and order for release of the accused from prison by termination of the imprisonment imposed on him. Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge returned the said petition with the following endorsement:

The High Court, Madras, has given time to pay the fine amount within the period of 3 months from the date of receipt of order. Hence this petition is returned.

The petitioner thereafter resorted to the present action by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court praying for a direction to the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli to receive the fine amount of Rs. 10,000/- in Criminal Appeal No. 478 of 1984 on his file and order for his release.

Learned Government Advocate, who is bodily present in Court today, took notice.

Both learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate were heard.

In case where default sentence is imposed, imprisonment gets terminated on payment of fine or on payment of proportional part of the fine depending upon the exigency of the situation and on these aspects of the matter, salient provisions had been incorporated u/s 68 and 69 of the Indian Penal Code and they read as follows:

68 Imprisonment to terminate on payment of fine.-

The imprisonment which is imposed in default of payment of a fine shall terminate whenever that fine is either paid or levied by process of law.

Termination of imprisonment on payment of proportional part of Fine.- If, before the expiration of the term of imprisonment fixed in default of payment, such a proportion of the fine be paid or levied that the term of imprisonment suffered in default of payment is not less than proportional to the part of the fine still unpaid, the imprisonment shall terminate.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 69 as quoted above, learned Counsel for the petitioner is prepared to deposit the entire amount of the fine, namely, Rs. 10,000/- before the trial Court for issue of a direction of termination of sentence.

It is rather a pity that learned Sessions Judge, before whom the application had been filed for the deposit of the fine amount for the termination of the sentence, had returned the application with the endorsement as incorporated as above, without understanding the significance of the provisions as adumbrated under Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Penal Code. The act of learned sessions Judge, in so doing caused unbearable agony to the petitioner accused in running from pillar to post, in the sense of originally filing an application before this Court; then going to the Court below and again coming back to this Court. Such a situation could have been avoided, if the law of the land, as incorporated under Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Penal Code, was given effect to by learned Sessions Judge. It appears that learned Sessions Judge was under a mistaken impression that once a time limit had been fixed by the High Court for payment of the fine, it is not legitimately permissible for the petitioner-accused to remit the fine amount, after the expiry of the time limit but before the expiration of the terms of imprisonment fixed in default of payment and pray for the termination of the sentence on payment of fine. If the time limit had been set by this court for payment of fine and the fine amount is not paid within the time so fixed, then it goes without saying that the petitioner-accused has to either surrender before the Court or the prosecuting agency will be in a position to arrest him and produce before Court for his detention in prison for undergoing the default sentence.

In the case on hand, there is no dispute that the petitioner-accused had been arrested and he is undergoing the default sentence. While undergoing the default sentence, if the fine amount is paid into Court, the mandate of law, as had been provided u/s 68 of the Indian Penal Code is to operate and the imprisonment has to terminate on the payment of the fine amount into Court.

In this view of the matter, the second Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli is directed to receive the fine amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousands only) and order for the release of the petitioner from prison. The fine amount, if deposited into Court, has to be paid to the victim, P.W.1, without any delay, as had already been ordered by this Court.

The petition is ordered accordingly.