AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
1 paragraphs · 206 wordsPandrang Raw, J.—The question raised in this reference by the District Magistrate of Ramnad is whether a Criminal Court is competent to direct that sentences of imprisonment imposed for default in payment of fines should in concurrently. The section that relates to this subject is Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the words of the section show that the direction can be given only in respect of sentences of imprisonment or transportation. The point appears to be covered by authority as will be seen from the decisions in Imperator v. Akidullah, 15 Ind. Cas. 808 : 13 Cri.L.J. 536 : S.S.L. 256, Emperor v. Subba Rao Shesharao AIR 1926 Bom 62 : 91 Ind. Cas. 543 : 27 Cri.L.J.111 : 27 Bom L.R.1351, Shidlingappa Gurulingappa Vs. Emperor, Emperor v. Ghulam Ahmad 118 Ind. Cas. 224 : AIR 1929 Sind 179 : 30 Cri.L.J. 907 : Ind. Rul. (1929) Sind 192, the last three cases being rulings by Benches of the High Courts concerned. It follows, therefore, that the direction of the Sub-Magistrate in this case to the effect that the sentences of imprisonment awarded by him in default of payment of the fines imposed by him is illegal and it is, therefore, cancelled.