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
7 paragraphs · 165 wordsPandrang Row, 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 run 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 (1911)
15 I.C. 808, Emperor v. Sesha Rao AIR 1926 Bom. 62, Shidlingappa Gurulingappa Vs. Emperor, and Emperor v. Gulam Ahamad (1929) 188
I.C. 224, 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 awarding sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of the fines imposed by him is illegal and it is therefore cancelled.