el}liPTEll 5

DISCRETION

IN

FIXING FINE

~s

SENTENCE

CIIAPI'ER V

DISCRETION IN FIXING FINE AS SENTEN~C__E

Ei.1. An Overview

" Punishment governs all mankind punishment alone preserves

them/ punishment wakes wht!e thetr guards are asleep , the w1se

constder the punishment ( danda) as the perfectton oftustJce

- /n.stituus if .Jfimfu .£aw

(Iransfatd5y.:Jfaghton. y.c 1875; PJ83)

5.1.1. According to S. Ramaswamy Iyer the laws of primitive communities were

concerned mainly with the payment of pecuniary reparation to the person injured and allowed private compensation of even grave crimes like homicide and serious bodily

hann. To quote the famous observation of Sir Henry Maine ... The pcnallav.· of primi­

tive communities was not the law of crimes but the law of wrong-. or tort-..' The Cnmt­

nallaw of anctcnt and primitive societies appears to he a bundle of faggot-. ticll together

haphazardly in a code, but a closer examination will reveal to us that they arc all ha-.ell on ~,cientific principles.: Therefore the study of fine in today's penology i-. rcquircll to

be looked into in perspectives of past Hindu Penology.'

5.20 Concept_of Fine and its Variation in AncientJndia

The Punishment was varied according to the caste system prevailing during the time

of Manu. According to Manu, penalty for theft by a Sudra was eight times the value of

the stolen goods, those ofVaishya the Sixteen times. those of Kshtriya thirty two time-. and those of a Brahmin sixty four times. may even a hundred or a hundred and twent]

eight times on the ground that he was educated to know the consequences of actions.~

As a general rule in the Hindu Law,'when a person of the higher caste inllict-. an inJury upon another of a lower caste the punishment was less severe than when a per...,on of the

I. 1\·cr. Ram;J,\\arnv S: Tlw Lo11· o(Tort.l. llJ44 Ed1110n.Char1er I. l'.h!e ~ ~- l·.o~qcrn L,i\< llt>Lhe C.tkull.t

2 \;q:o~m R C Lu11 o/ Cnntt'.l 111 lndw 1 Vol - II

J Dul!d. \;.K On~111 and De,·elupmenl oj Cnmuwl Ju.11lr ,. 111 l11duJ. I'I'JIJ I:Jiiltlfl. Deep & Deep l'uhli,,ll,,"" \.,.,.

Dclhr Pl.

4. Manu Smnti. VIII. 377-n.

lower caste cause inJury to that of superior. Thus the nature and amount ol hne \arll'd

with the caste of the offender.'

5.2.2. Manu, Narada. Brlwspati. Kan·ww. Kautil\'o. Yujnu\'albu U/1(1

MarsyaPurana gove us importanl sentencing principlc\· o( i111posing finn 111

\'arious offences.

Manu suggested time and place of offence. the strength and knowledge nt the oi

fender. ability of the criminal to suffer. motive and the nature of the cnme a~ factor" to

be considered for int1icting the due measure of fine. 0 Narada suggested "Fine · a..,

punishment for theft. , cheating gambling illegal confinement. adultery. obstrucung

public road. Brhaspati also suggested fine for. theft. kidnapping. adulteration. adultery

and sex offences, for causing hurt. for obstructing public road etc. Katyww suggested

tine as one of the modes of punishment. Karymw suggested fine for cheats. thieve" tor

causing hurt. cruelty to animals etc. All these account's tend to show that Hindu lllv.

givers were wise enough to select punishment as fine. Let us. therefore. examine thL'

views of ancient lawgivers on fine as sentence seriatim.

S.3(a) MANU :

5.3.1. Manu suggested fine in the following case~ :-

( li) for cheating regarding matrimonial offence or giving a defective girl in marriage without informing the bridegroom's party.

( ii) for false accusation.~

(iii) for defamation.''

(iv) fine of 500 panas for destruction of idol alongwith the responsibility of rcpairin~ and restoring it. 111

(v) Fine of first grade was of 250 panas. of 2nd grade 500 pamt~. of Highest gr~tlk I 000 panas. 11

(vi) According to Manu, when a commoner would he lined one pana only for an offence, a king would be liable to pay 1000 panas. 12

5. Da:, Gupta. R . Crime and PuniJhmt'lll in Ancien/ India . I '-)73, P.36

fl. \1anu Smrit1. VII. 126

7 Manu. VIII. ::u:-. 22~ 1'. .'.lanu. VIII. 1711

'-1 \bnu. \'Ill. :h'7

10. \Linu. IX. 2~'-'

I I \lanu. VII Uh

12. Manu. VIII. ].16

~>.4. (b) NARADA:

5.4.1. Namda suggested various modes of fine in the following: -;ituatiun~ -

( i) fine of eight times the articles sold hy weight and mca-;urc for steallllg:

(ii) a fine of five times the value of the -;tolen article.~

(iii) fine according to the size and value of the animal.:'

(iv) for giving a defective girl in marriage without informing the hnde groom" party (

(v) for false accusation. 17

(vi) for illegal confinement or restraint.'~

(vii) highest fine when a man had connection with a woman of hi-; own caste. moJ­erate fine for connection with women of lowe-;t ca-;te. 19

(viii) for adultery with low caste woman. 211

( ix) for approaching a kept mistress. a maid -;crvant or a slave helongmg to another person. for the purpose of adultery. 2

'

( x) fine of 50 panas for abusing a man of Kha-;triya caste. 25 panas for a vaisya and 12 panas for a sudra. 22

(xi) for Sahasa of the first degree. the minimum fine of one hundreJ pana-.. lor sahasa of the mediocre degree. a fi-ne no less than five hunJreJ pana-; :-.houiJ he im-

.1 '' pO'iCu.-

(xii) for obstructing the public road in various waysY

(xiii) fine of at least eight times of the amount of the value of weight anJ measure lor the purpose of selling. in case of theft. 2

'

13. Nar App. 25.

14. Nar App. 22-24.

15. Nar App. 51-52.

16. Nar. XII. 33.

17. Nar. XII. 34.

18. Nar. 151

I Y. Nar. XII. 70

20. ~ar. XII. 7h

21 \-1r. XII. 7X

22 :--.;,,,_X\' X\ I lh

::'.i \cu. \1\ · 7-X

24. N,u. XI. 15-ln

25. Nar. App. 25.

S.5. (c) BRHASPATI :

5.5.1. Brlwspati suggested fine in following offence situation-, :-

(i:) for a cnme of second degree. 211

(iii) for kidnapping any man or woman. 2-

(iii) fine of ten times the stolen amount for stealing grass. wood. tlowers or gram.>

(i:v) The dishonest merchant who concealed the defect of the articles and sold the good articles by mixing with bad-articles shall be punished with fine double the \ aluc of the article. 2()

( v) The imitation sellers who manufactured and sold the imitation articles and pa-,-,cd them as real were to pay double the amount as fine. 111

(vi) tine of the highest degree for illegal connection with a woman of his own caste moderate fine for connection with women of lowest caste' 1

( in case of sex ollences).

(vii) When a brahmana abused a virtuous sudra. he had to pay a nominal fine. For censuring a brahmana by a man of other caste were to be heavily tined.;:

(viii) tine of first degree for mild injuries. moderate tine tor usmg weapon for cau-,­ing mediocre wound. highest fine for causing serious injur-v."

( :ix) who caused hurt and also over and above the II ne. the experhc of medical treatmL·nt

(X) who destroyed implements of husbandry. tlowers. rooh and fruits. '4

(xi) for obstructing the public road and for blockaded drainage or watcrv.. ay-,. ··

Thus, Brhaspati suggested gradation of lines according to the na.ture of the crime. financial position or status of the offender.

26. Brha~ XXVII. 5.7

27. Brha~ XXI I X 27-2X

2X. Brha~ XXII- 7

2ll. Brha~ XXII- 7

.10 Brha~ XXII. 1-t

.1 I B rha~ X X Ill. I 2

3"2. Brh;l, X\:11-12. \XI-I 'i

33. Brha' XXI. 2.5.b.lli

34. Brha~ XXII. 25.

35. Brha~ XX. 15.

5.6 KATYAYANA :

5.6.1. Karyaymw prescribed fine as a mode of punishment in lollowmg situatJons:-

(a) Katyayana suggested eight times the fine to be imposed on a sudra

( i) for receiving stolen property. ·'6

(ii) for receiver of stolen property for such cheats. 11

(iii) for assault and injury."

(iv) who injured a man over and above the fine. the expense of medical treatment.'''

(v) for cruelty to animals. 40

(vi) for destroying trees, shrubs and creepers.41

(vii) for stealing and burning idols and destroying temples. the monetary punish­ment was 250 panas.4 ~

(viii) to an assailant who injured a limb or organ of the victim and also compensallon and the expenses for recovery as also anything that he might have taken away in the

quarrel. 4'

(b) Katyayana exempted the person who otfered bribe but imposed fine who ac­cepted it. The bribed amount to the royal officials were compelled to be returned and the officials who accepted bribe amount were to pay tine. eleven times the hnhcd amount.4.~

S. 7. KAUTILYA:

5.7 .1. Kautilya said that for an offence, the king should pay tine to God Varuna and that should be distributed afterwards among the Brahmanas.4

" He prescribed fmc in following crime situations :

(i) for counterfeiting coins, for its manufacture and for its acceptance and passing 11

to another person.46

(ii)for theft for the first time in holy places like pick pockets. the punishment was corporal punishment or a fine of fifty four panas ; in case of second offence. tine of one

36. Kat : 490-93. 806FF 37. Kat . 485 38. Kat. 810 IT

39. K.at. 78. 40. K1t. in v1vadaratna kara. P.:!79.

41. K.Jt. 793.

4:!. Kat. quoted in VJvadeCJntamanJ: section robbery and vwlcnce 43 K;Jt. 111 Vl\~tdaratnak.ara. P:!71.

44. Kat. 6)-51

45. A.S. 4.13

46. A.S. 4.1 J

hundred. in case of third offence tine of four hundred in lieu of corporal pum-.hment

(iii) for theft of cocks, inchoate cats. dogs or pigs less than twenty live pana-. tin value) or in case of killing, a fine of fifty four panas, half the fines for ·chandals' and

forest dwellers.

( iv) a fine of hundred panas for theft of deer or objects from deer parks. and dou hie the tine in case of theft or deer or birds for show or pleasure or for killing them.

(v) for carrying away deer. beasts. birds. wild animals or tish caught in snares. nets or concealed pits. shall be an equal amount of fine of those things .

. (vi) for theft of small articles of the artisans. artists. actors or ascetics. a fine of unc hundred rupees. for theft of large articles of agricultural goods tine of two hundred panas, for stealing a cart or a small animal a fine of three hundred panas. tine of -.1x hundred panas for the offence of stealing a big animal. According to Kautilya the punishment for stealing cattle, images, persons, fields. houses. money. gold. gems or crops belonging to a temple shall be the highest fine.

(vii) a fine of two hundred rupees for criminal trespass.

(viii) fine of four hundred rupees for cheating with false cowrie, dice. leather. irony

cubes etc.

(ix) fine of hundred rupees for aiding a thief or an adulterer. For a male offender it was double.

· (x) tine of the highest amount if death is caused by injury within a fortnight. If death is caused within a month, the punishment shall be five hundred rupees along with treat­ment cost.

(xi) if a person strikes with a weapon for causing violence, he shall be awarded highest fine.

(xii) if an intoxicated person strikes another with a weapon for causing v10lence the puniishment will be fine of two hundred rupees if it is done through delusion.

(xiii) if a person causes abortion with a blow, the highest amount of fine shall he inflicted.

(xiv) for supplying foods, accommodation, fire. tools. giving counsel or rendering service to the murderers and thieves, a fine of the highest amount was prescribed.

(xv) highest tine was awarded for breaking a dam if it was without water. Middle amount of tine to be awarded if the dam was in a ruinous and abandoned condition

(xvi) fine of seven hundred was awarded in case of striking with hands or feet of the

a) Persons of the highest varna.

b) Elders

c:) In case of mounting the royal carriage

cl) Riding animal.

( x vii) A fine of eight hundred in case.

a) a sudra calling himself a Brahmm.

b) a person orders what is reasonable.

c) a person blinds both eyes of other persons.

(xviii) fine of nine hundred in the following cases :-

a) for setting a thief free.

b) for setting an adulterer-free.

c) for writing a royal edict with omissions or additions.

d) for kidnapping a maiden.

e) for kidnapping a female slave ·together with money.

f) for a fraudulent dealer.

g) for selling unclean meat.

S.8(e) MATSYA PURANA:

5X 1 Marsya Purana suggested tine as punishment and highest fine v.. as awarclccl for interpolation or alteration of a charter. Matsya Purana suggested tine in the follow­mg cases-

(i) for giving false evidence ~ 7

(ii) for concealing bridegroom's defect._.~

(iii) who misused the stored wat€r of ponds and polluteclthe holl~ water. .l'·

( iv) Highest fine for abusing Gods.'0

f5.9(f) YAJNAVALKYA:

5.9.1 Yajnavalkya prescribed fine (amercement) in the following offence-.­

(i) highest amercement for any one who offered help to a thief.'

(ii) Highest amercement was to be for using false balances and false measures<

47 ~1at~ya. 227. I'J'!.

4H. ~1at~ya. 227.

4'!. Matsya. 227. 17.'1-74.

50. ~1ah} a. 2::!7. I XX

51. YaJ. II. 276

52. YaJ. II. 276.

(iii) highest fine for interpolation or alteration of a charter.';

(iv) the highest penalty to pay for examiner of coins who declared good mone\ had and bad Money good.' 4

( v) for illegal confinement or restraint."

(vi) when a man had. illegal connection with a woman of his own caste. tine ut till'

highest degree was the punishment. 50

(vii) when a man had illegal connection with a woman of lowest caste. moderate line was the punishment."'

(viii) fine was the punishment for adultery with any of the followmg ·

a) Kept mistress. (b) Maid servant, (C) Slave

(ix) The punishment for adultery with a female ascetic was monetary pumshment.''

(x) Fine was the punishment for causing injury to animals. trees or damaging other property.~'~

(xi) Highest amercement was the punishment of a person who caused the release ol an undcrtrial prisoner.~>1 '

!5.1 0. ANALYSIS OF CASES WHERE FINE USED AS A MODE OF PUNISHMENT INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, RAIL­Wll. YS ACT, ETC.

5.1 0.1. In the analysis of reported cases. where fine has heen used as only punish­ment or alongwith imprisonment under IPC or under Special Acts. the object of thi-. study is to reveal whether any principle followed hy the courts in lixing the 4uantum of fine or not.

The main principle for fixing q~.Jantum of tine has hecn provided in "cction 113 ol I.P.C. as stated below:

Sec. 63 IPC. Amount of fine.

~Nhere no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend. the amount of fine to whiich the offender is liable is unlimited, but shall not be excessive.

53. YaJ. II. 276

54. YaJ II 276.

'i5 YaJII 274

5b. 'la1. II. 2X11.

57 Y.tJ. II 2Kt>

5X. YaJ. II. 2'!_,

S'J. YaJ II. 212. 214. 22.'. 2::5-26

60. YaJnava1k) a.

Section 63 IPC is an important law on the fixation of the quantum of line. But man~ relevant factors will come out and they are also to be properly e\aluated and cun'-IdL'r­ing those factors. the amount of fine should he fixed. The age. character. antc .. :cdcnt" ul

the accused. the earning capacity. financial status and the dependant member-. ut the convict shall have to be taken into consideratiOn for tlxmg any amount ul tmc altci giving full opportunity of hearing on the question of sentence as envisaged 111 Sec. 235(2) and 248(2) of Cr.P.C. 1973 to the accused.

Fine plays a paramount role in the administration of criminal justice. Fine should he given priority over all other kinds of punishments. because it ts the mo-,t economic a-.

well as liberal punishment among all kinds of pumshments. The Govt. rc\cnue abo can be enhanced by prescription of fine. Moreover. if imprisonment is given the prior­ity over tine. the jails will be over-crowded. Fine can thus be safely imposed on the offender. Where both imprisonment and tine are compulsory it can be fixed consider­ing the aggravating and the mitigating background of the offender. The Ld. sentencing Judge must also see the financial condition of the accused before unpt>"~Jtion ol line. Where the accused is a habitual offender. enhanced amount of fine may he prescnhed

S.11. ANALYSIS OF REPORTED CASES UNDER IPC

1975 Crilj 3J·AIR 1975 SC 2336

Fact: The appellant was employed as a cash clerk in the Delhi Milk Scheme. Hi-, duty was to collect cash from the milk depots assigned to him. It is stated that from September 18. I tJ66 to Sept. 23. 19tJ6 the appellant received R-.. ~UN3 - ~~ from the depot manager-. of the various depots which were under hi-. charge. hut failed to deposit the same with the Delhi milk scheme. The appellant ah-.ented hinl"'elf \\ ith effect from Sept. 24. I tJ66. Report to the police was thereupon made hy the AdmmJ-.tratJ\ e oi1JL"l'r of the Delhi milk scheme on Sept. 27. ltJfl6. A case was thereupon registered u/-. -HJlJ

Indian Penal Code. against the appellant. After investigation the appellant was sent-up for trial. At the trial the appellant in his statement u/s 342 of the code of Crimlllal procedure stated that he became ill on Sept. 18. 1966 and as such could not collect the cash accounts from the various depot managers. The appellant further stated that he­cause of his illness he had gone to Kamal. It was denied by the appellant that he had embezzled any amount.

The High court after considering the material on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution case about the appellant having committed criminal breach of trust of the sum of Rs. 88.98.38 was proved against him beyond doubt. The appellant wa-, accordingly convicted.

Sentence :-

Magistrate ___ Acquitted the accused

Delhi High Court ____ Convicted u/s409 I.P.C. R.I. of one year+ line of R-..lJ.OOO/ - i.d. R.I. for6 months.

Supreme Court- Sentence of R.I. is reduced to period already undergone. pro\ 1dcll

accused deposits additional fine Rs. 2000/-.

I.P.C. case U/s 381

Fact: The appellant was a poor employee was bemg pmd rupee~ 1251- pm. h: his employee who was engaged in the business of manufacturing exercise Book..-.,. 15 days before his wife delivered a child. he is alleged to have committed a theft of rolls of paper worth Rs. 104/- from the shop. He was prosecuted in thi~ con­nection. The ld. trial magistrate found him guiltv. convicted him u/s 381 of l.P.C.

'-- L -

and sentenced him to suffer R.I. of I month and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/. Thl' sentence in defau]t of payment of fine was of the order of I 5 days ngorou-., prisonment . The appellant has challenged the order of conviction and senten~_·l' rendered by the ld. Trial magistrate.

1. Sections : 147 Indian Penal Code, punishment for rioting

Noor Klum Vs. Laxmi Narain 61

The accused pullled down shutter and took possession of shop. forcibly- Pun­ishment of 2 months' S.I. and fine of Rs. 100/- imposed.

2. S. 165A : Punishment for abetment of ofl'ences defined in S. 16 I to S. 165

Stale of Rajastlwn V\. Oda11wl 1'~·

S. H.O. took Rs. I 001- as hrihe for getting case compounded. Fine of Rs )(H)/

was imposed.

Jerhmal Korhari Vs. Srare o(Rajasrlwn '''

The accused offered hrihe of Rs. 10,000/- to Police officers for relc<.hl' ol foreign smuggler- fine of Rs. 2500/- was held inadcyuatc.

Bhim SinRh Vs. Srare~>~

The accused offered bribe to S.D.M. to get order in his favour. He was re­leased on undergone ( less than 3 months ) and fine of Rs. I 00/-.

The accused offered Rs. 100/-" to Naih Tehsilder to make order in his Ia\ our Imprisonment of 6 months and fine of Rs. 2000/- was awarded .

. .3. S.170: Punishment for falsely personating a Public Servant.

11111(}76 Cr. L R IR,IJI h4•'l

h-:2 1Y71 RL\\ 21!4

113.llJX7 CniJ "7n4 ILJ~h RL\\ 27~

o4.1<J56 RLW 173

65.1956 RLW 464

Gopal Singh Vs. State 66

The accused introduced himself as R.T.O. and took Rs. 60/- as bribe from Truck driver. Fine of Rs. I 00/- was imposed.

4. S.201 I.P.C. :·- Punishment for causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen offices.

BrU Kishore Vs. Sture of UP 07

Father -in-law convicted u/s 201 I.P.C. for lodging report of suicide by hi~ daughter-in-law, though husband murdered wife.

Punishment of two years and Fine of Rs. 50/- was awarded.

State Vs. Roop Singh6x

The accused was acquitted u/s 302 I.P.C. but convicted u/s 201 I.P.C. Punish­ment of S years imposed with fine of Rs. I 000/-.

5. S. 338 I.P.C. : Punishment for causing grievous hurt by act endangering Life or Personal Safety of Others.

State Vs. Rama Kant NaJ.n'enkar (>Y

The accused was convicted and sentenced to till Rising of court and fine of Rs. 250/-.

Mudho SinRh Vs. Swre 70

Injuries were caused to 4 Passengers in a jeep. The accused was sentenced to one month and fine of Rs. 125/-.

Stute Vs. Niranjan Singh 71

The accused person was convicted u/s 279, 338 I.P.C. for causing accident hy

truck. He was sentenced to 2 months and fine of Rs. 250/-.

6. S. 292 I.P.C. : Punishment for obscene literature, Picture, etc.

Uuam SinRh Vs. Delhi Administration 72

Sale of playing cards with obscene naked pictures in Pornographic ~cxual postures. Punishment of 6 months' S.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- awarded.

7. S. 304 (I) I.P.C.: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder:

66.19HI Cr.LR !RaJ) Page 303

67. \YXY CnlJ 6\6

6X.I Y77 CrilJ Rap-, than 597

69.196X CniJ Y33

70.1961 RLW 404

71.1971 RLW 534

72.AIR 1974 SC I :!30

Swre (~fMaharashrra Vs. Ankush 73

The accused was released on undergone (3 years) and fine of Rs. 1000/- a" one of accused was suffering from leprosy.

A.rl'ind Kumar Vs. Sture of L'.P -..

The accused caused death by knife. He was sentenced to fine of Rs. 250UW­and 7 years" imprisonment.

Prem Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration ;<

The death of uncle was caused by the accused. He was sentenced to I 0 \car'· imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5.000/-

8. S. 304 Part (II) Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Swte qf UP Vs. Akhtar Khan 76

The accused caused death by stab wound with knife - fine Rs. 600/- as ac­cused was minor and could not be sent to jail.

St'\'ll Singh Vs. Srate --

Death was caused by gandasa blows- one accused was sentenced to 3 day" and another accused 3 months and fine of Rs. 2000/- was incident v-:as 16 year" old.

Bell//\' Frwzci.\ V.\. Stole of Kt' ra Ia 7'1

The accused put his friend into fast flowing river who did not know swim­ming and caused death- 3 months S.I. and fine Rs. 5000/-.

Na~ia Vs. Sture :"

Death caused by single blow on head- released on undergone ( 5 months land fine of Rs. 1000/- as incident was 13 years· old.

Yo~endra Morw:ji Vs. Sture of Gujarat su

The accused caused death of firing 3 shots in quick succession in private de­fence- 6 months and fine of Rs. 10,000/- to he paid to widow.

73.1Y:·H-, Crill 171)(1

7.t. 19l'H SCC 1 en I 132 : I9H:' crLR I SCI 255

75.19iNCriiJ 1106

76.1'!9 I CniJ 177'1

77 I9'1(JI II RLW 2'10

7H I 'I'll Cr. IJ 2-11 I

7'1.1 990 Cr.LR 1 RaJ 1 5-IH

XO.I9~10 Cr.LR. 1 SC l 21 Y

Klwnjun Pol Vs. Stale ul UP '1

Death caused by single knife blow - released on undergone (one year) and fine of Rs. 50.000/- as he was released on bail by supreme court hetore I 2! car.-.,

Mohinder Pal Julb. Vs. State o{Punjah <

Death by gun shot- Released on undergone ( 13 months) and fine Rs. I 0000/

- as incident was 10 years' old.

Jamme Vs. State "'3

Death caused by 2,3 blows of wooden plank- 2 years· S.I. and fine of Rs LOOO/- was awarded.

U.JaKor SinRh Vs. State ~4

Death caused by single knife blow. The accused was released on undergone (11/2 years) and fine Rs. 5000/- as incident was 13 years' old.

Rahim Bux Vs. Stare x.'

Death Caused by stabbing knife in Chest- 3 years and fine Rs. 5500/-.

Fmeh SinRh Vs. Srare w.

Death caused by Lathi. hallam blows- 4 years and tine Rs. 5001-.

Ramhet Vs. State li7

Death caused by Lathi. Farsa blows- 4 years and fine of Rs. I 000/-

Brij La/ Vs. Slale 1'1

Death caused by inflicting 25 injuries with Lathi-4 years and fincofRs.5001

Hanumww Ram Vs. Srare :w

Death caused by Lathi. 5 years and fine of Rs. 500/- was awarded as puni . ..;h­ment.

HeeraLal Vs. State Yu

Death caused by single lathi blow on head- 5 years and fine of Rs. 200/-

HI 1990 Cr. LR <SCi 544

X2.AIR l':i79 SC 577

H3.1978Cr. LR. 1RaJI 161

X-U':i92 121 RLW XX

K'i I 990 1 \1 RIW 171

X6 \'lXXI 21 KLW 'J9

X7 l9X)I.I2l Kl\\ "-i2

I\ X I ~lXlJ C1 L R 1 Ra1 1 22Y

o'l.l976 Cr.LR 1RaJ1 'i2(J

l)Q. 1977 Cr. L.R. 1 RaJ 1 24 7

Badri La/ Vs. Srare Yt

Death caused by single axe- blow- 5 years and fine of R~. 2501-

Munshi Vs. Srate Yc

Death caused by Lathi and Magha blows- 5 years and Fine of Rs. 200/-.

Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab Yl

Death caused by single Tukwa blow on head-S years and fine ot Rs.l5.0001-

Babula/ Vs. State 94

Death caused by axe-blow on neck- 5 years and fine of Rs. 500/-.

Suclw Singlw Vs. State Y5

Single lathi blow on head : 5 years and fine of Rs. I 000/-

Vijai Singh Vs. State o;6

Death caused by Lathi blows- 5 years and fine of Rs. :20001-.

Chetram Vs. State Y:

Death caused by blant side of Gandasa- 5 years and fine of Rs. 2000/-.

Gautam Vs. Stale Yx

Death caused by Kulhari blows- 5 years and fine of Rs. l 000/-.

Sunder Das Vs. Swte YY

Death of debtor caused by burns- Released on undergone ( 6 years l and II nc of Rs. 20.000/- to be paid to deceased's wife.

Goku/ Vs. State 1110

Single blow of lathi on head - 7 years and fine Rs. 5.000/-.

State (4WB. Vs. Sunil Biswas 101

Police officers caused death in Police custody by beating -7 years and fine of Rs. 5000/-.

91.19Hl Cr. L.R. (RajJ

92.19Hl Cr. L.R. (Raj) 503

93.19HH Cr. L.R. 1SCJ 2R4

94.llJXR 11 l RLW 49~

95 l9X9 CrLR , R..11 '65X

'ih i')L)Il Cr L R ,R,IJ' <:-:7

97 19'10 Cr.L R 1 RaJ 1 570

'IX 19'12 CrLR. IR.tJI.\44

')9.1 ')XX II l RLW JR

I 00.19lN Cr.L.R. 1 RaJ l 562

10119')0 Cr.LJ 2093

Amb Singh Vs. State 102

19 injuries caused by Dharia and Lathi- Released on undergone and fine of Rs. 2,500/-.

Kapoor La! Vs. State of UP Jul

Death of uncle caused by single Selha blow- Released on undergone and fine of Rs. 50,000 /-as accused was 18 years old at the time of incident.

· Chanda La! Vs. State of Raj JV4

Death of two persons- Released on undergone and fine Rs. 3.000/- as inci­dent was 20 years' old.

9. Sec 304A : Punishment for causing death by negligence

Nathuram Vs. State 105

Death caused by Bus, also ordered to pay Rs. 500/- as compensation.

Shiv Prasad Vs. State 106

Death of girl. ordered to pay compensation of Rs. I 000/-.

Manolwr Vs. Stlllt' ofA.P 107

Bus collided with first cart which in turn dashed against second and second against third causing death of person in third. Fine of Rs.750/-.

Mohana Sree Kumaran Nair Vs. State of'Kerala w'

Death caused by truck - Fine of Rs. I 000/- but it was deprecated and observed that sentence of imprisonment is rule and sentence of fine is only exception.

In re N.P. Ganesan 1011

Accused bus driver hitted pedestrian - Fine Rs. 2000/- as accused was 5 years' old, was in service for 28 years and incident was 4 years old.

Prakash Chand Axnihotri Vs. State of M.P 110

Incident was 18 years' old- Fine of Rs. 2000/- to be paid to victim's family.

10~. 1990111 RLW I 1~

103.1'191 Cr. LJ ~159

104.1YY2 Cr. U 5~~

105.1987 RLW 745

106.1991 Cr. L.R. (RaJI

107. 1 'J75 CrilJ 466

108.1987 CriiJ 1591

109.19H9 CrilJ (Mad) 1160

110.1991 Cr.LR SC 207

Indramani lena Vs. State of Orissa 111

Death of 70 years, old man caused by bullock cart- Fine of Rs. 5.000!­

Chitur Vs. State u:c

Released on undergone ( 10 days) and fine Rs. 2.500/- as incident was l ~year' old. though death of his own brother was caused.

Nand Ballabh Pant Vs. State ll 1

One month imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- awarded.

State ul Karnataka Vs. Md Ismail 114

Death of 85 years' old man one month and fine of Rs. 1000/-.

Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration 115

6 months and fine of Rs. 1000/- for causing death by bus.

10. S.323 I.P.C : Punishment for causing Voluntary hurt

KeH-'(t/ Ram Vs. Ram Saran 116

S.H.O. and Head Constable caused 8 injuries to a person in police custody. Fine of Rs. 500/- as incident was 11 years' old.

IJ.Chauaiah & another Vs. Swte ofA.P tr

Conviction altered from S. 332 to S. 323 for assault on typist working in s~\111<--'

office by accused Health Inspector- Fine Rs. 200/-

Laxman Vs. State ux

One injury on abdomen- Released on probation and Rs. 10.000/- as compen­sation.

Raj Kumar Vs. State 11"

Two first blows on neck and Chin - Released on undergone ( 45) days anu Fine of Rs. 1000/- ·

Solum Sin~h Vs. State 120

Conviction altered from S. 304 to S. 323 for beating by fists. kicks and slaps -fine Rs. 200/-. III.I'N2 CniJ 72

112.1990 ((I RLW 223

113.1977 Cnlj SC 5-I<J

11-1.1 'JXl) CniJ 235

I 1 S.1975 CniJ 1 7)2

116.19XI Cr. L.R. !RaJ) 235

117.197X Cr.L.R. 1SC1 ·'-'0

118.1991 Cr.L.R. iRaJI 218

II<J.I990(l)RLW 15-1

120.1978 CrLR 529

11. S. 324 I.P.C: Punishment for voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

Shriranx Kishan Vs. State of Malwrashtra icJ

The accused was 18 years' old. Accused inflicted knife blow on chest m scuffle; one year and fine of Rs. 5,000/-

Babu Singh Vs. State 122

Single knife injury on chest -6 months and fine of Rs. 250/-

Kailash Prasad \ls. State of Bihar l:c<

Injury with Bhala on chest- Fine Rs. 2000/-

Madan La/ Vs. State ofH.P 124

I 0 injuries with knife- Fine of Rs. 2000/- and compensation of Rs. 5000/- as accused was medical practitioner.

Bishna Vs. State 125

Injury with axe on thigh- Released on undergone ( 4 months) and fine of Rs. 3000/-

12. S. 325 : Punishment for voluntary causing grievous hurt.

State of H.P V Mirm~jeet w,

Fine of Rs. 250/- as incident was 9 years' old.

Ami r So in Vs. State of U.P c

6 injuries and two teeth were dislocated - T.R.C. and fine of Rs. 2001- wa...; awarded as sentence.

5.11.1. Sec. 326 IPC

Heerafaf Ranzfaf Parmar and Ors. -Vs- State of Maharashrra' 2x

In short. the prosecution case is this : emerging from the point of eve-teasing hy

Bittya, a co-accused, a friction arose between the injured and the accused persons. The accused person Bittya along with Rajendra Mankar. Srikant and Dinesh Dhumal as­saulted Raju with knives who protested against eve-teasing. The blow was int1icted on the chest. When Raju, tried to run away some of the accused persons inflicted injuric-.. 121.1992 CniJ 1~6::'

1::'::'.1977 Cr.L R IR,IJI 19)1

123 lliXO CnlJ J'J() AIR 1%0 SCI Of>

12-l.ll)l)() Crill .1!U

125.19K~ Cr. LR lJ'i

126.191W CniJ II

127.1Y74 CniJ IY6

128.1998 CniJ rBombay H1gh Court) 574.

on both sides of his buttocks with sharp instruments. It 1~ also alleged that exceptm~ Bittya and Rajendra Mankar. all others (including appellants l int1icted blows wtth ltsh and kicks on him. As a result of the assault. RaJU fell down and died and thereafter Bittya and others ran away.

The Ld. Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the accused in the followmg section:-. .

i) Under Section 148 I.P.C. to undergo 3 years' R.I. and a tine of Rs. 2.UUO;- m default (i.dl to undergo 6 months' R.I. and

ii) Under Section 307 read with r/w Sec. 34 I.P.C. to 5 years' R.I. and to pav a fine ot

Rs. 3.000/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for 2 years.

· Hon 'ble Bombay High Court altered the conviction u/s 307 I.P.C. to 326 I.P.C. and observed as follows on the point of sentence :

" ..... It appears that on account of their impressionable age. they partiCipated tn the incident. Bearing these facts in mind. as also the circumstances that the mc1dent took place nearly 8 years ago ; the appellant did not assault the victim. appellant Durgesh Bartakke, has been in jail for about 9 weeks and Heeralal Parmour for about I week. the ends of justice, in my judgement would be served if the jail-sentence of the appellants on the said court is reduced to the period already undergone by them provided each of

them pays a tine of Rs. 15,000/- within a period of 6 months. from today. in the tnal court. failing which the defaulting appellant/appellants. as the case may be. would un­dergo a sentence of 2 years' R.I. ln my view. the line realiseJ shoulJ he patJ a:-. com­pensation to the victim Raju Eknath Chowdhuri."

· The principle that is emerged from this case is that a substantial amount of line ma)

be awarded as penalty following concept of compensatory criminal jurisprudence and the amount of fine may be paid as compensation to the vtctim of the ofkncc.

5.11.2. Sec. 377 I.P.C.

Raju -Vs- State of Haryana 12 '~

The accused committed the unnatural offence upon a girl of 9 years during the tem­porary absence of his uncle who went for water for quenching his thirst. When the uncle returned, he witnessed the occurrence. On seeing Mahindcr Singh. uncle of the victim girL the appellant accused ran away. There was bleeding from her pri\·ate part-. and she became unconscious.

The Ld. Add!. Sessions Judge convicted the accused U/s. 377/201 l.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.000/- and in default ol payment of tine to further undergo R.I. for 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. )(JO/­

and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 9 months for the offence u/s 201 l.P. C. 1:!9. 1998 CriiJ !PUnJab & Haryana) 2587.

In appeal. the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court observed :

( Para 22) .. 11: is correct that the appellant has committed an unnatural offence upon a female of 9 years, which implies sexual perversity. At the same time it cannot be ignored that the appellant is 20/21 years of age and is not a previou~ convict. Thereby a sentence of long term imprisonment may not have a health) effect or result in this case. At the same time, the nature of the offence committed by the appellant requires that he must be kept in environment of an institution of confinement for some period to enable him ponder and brood over his perversity and learn how to live in a well-organised society. In the facts and circumstances of this case. a sentence of three years imprisonment would meet the ends of justice ...

5.11.3 Sec. 326 I.P.C.

In State of Tripura -Vs-Swapan Dey 130 the accused committed offence of Grievous hurt. But the accused, a young man, got married and had two children and incident was 17 years' old. Taking in view the manner in which deceased was killed and that the young woman would be left husbandless, the accused was sentenced to three and half year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the Court.

5.11.4 Sec. 326 I.P.C

The State of Maharashrra -Vs- HD.Charapale"'' the accused seriously injured the victim by knife and convicted u/s 326 I.P.C. The trial court sentenced him to 3 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d. 3 months' R.I. to be awarded on the respondent u/s. 326 I.P.C. State preferred appeal for enhancement of sentence U/s. 377( 1) Cr.P.C. 1973.

Hon'ble Bombay High Court comprising a division Bench. held in para · I X of the judgement, "The Ld. Trial Judge should have awarded a more stnngent sentence to the respondent. To our regret he has not given adequate weightagl' to the extremely serious injury sustained by the informant". Hon'ble High Court in para: 19, held that where the accused had already served in full jail term and it would be indeed very harsh to send him back to the jail after efflux of a decade or more. According to High Court "We thought that in the said circumstances. the better course would be to impose a substantial fine on the respondent and direct the whole of it to be paid as compensation to the informant Raja Ram Pati I p. w.2 and in case he is not alive to his legal heirs".

So, an enhanced sentence a fine of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed on the accused i.d. he was to serve 2 years' R.I. considering the fact that a substantial sentence of a period of 3 years' R.I. was undergone by the accused.

130. 1997 CnU 1 Gauhali High Court) 2032.

131. 1997 CriU <Bombay High Court) 1649.

5.11.5 Sec. 326 I.P.C.

Tamil Selvane -Vs- Union Territory of Pondichery. '<

The fact of this case in very short is- the complainant in this case was a personnel of­ficer who initiated disciplinary proceedings against the accused. The accused fnrth1s rea sun attacked him personally by an aruval (ARUVAL) and took the law in his()\\ n hand

On point of sentence. it was contended by the !d. Defence Counsel that the accused recently married and out of marriage two daughters were born. The accm.ed had to

ri1aintain them along with his wife. So a lenient sentence was to be passed. The P.P. ol

this case. strongly opposed this. Hon'ble Bombay High Court decided that while con­sidering the manner in which the attack so made in front of house of P.W.l this court feels that this being a heinous crime, offender should be properly dealt with. The Hon'ble Madras High Court taking all these factors into consideration and for the mter­est of justice. imposed Rs. 15,000/- as fine on the accused. The fine amount was or­dered to be converted into compensation and to be paid to the complainant.

Though the offence is grievous, considering the fact that the accused is recently married and he has. to maintain his family including his wife and two daughters. a hi~h amount of fine (Rs.l5.000/-) may be imposed on the accused. for the purpose of saving the accused's family.

Issue:- where the punishment for the section 326 l.P.C. is imprisonment for life or imprisonment for l 0 years and fine. can a JUdge may Impose fine only without attach­ing a single days' imprisonment? In the above case. it appears from the judgement that Hon'ble Madras High Court did not impose mandatory imprisonment or at least T.R.C. or a single day's S.I. where it is a mandatory provision.

5.11.6 Sec.498A I.P.C.

Madhuri Mukund Chitnis Vs Mukund Mart Chitnis another '·"Cruelty mtlictcd through litigating process - Malicious and vexatious litigation instituted agamst wile out of a sense of vindictiveness - the wife was humiliated and tortured through execu­tion of search warrants and seizure_ of personal property. Held Section encompa-.;se-.; even such class of cruelty committed through the litigative process (Para-]()).

B) Penal Code ( 45 of 1860). Sec. 498A-conviction under-sentence - must he in consonance with gravity of offence proved. Jail sentence is not compulsive. Trial court awarded sentence of six month's rigorous imprisonment-Appellate court taking into consideration of age, occupation and family conditions of the hushand and suhstttulcu Jail sentence by a fme of Rs. 6000/-. Held though appellate court was justit!ed m substituting the jail sentence, it ought to have awarded a modest fmc-fine raised to Rs. 30,000/-(Para: 12)

132. 1997 CriU (Madras H1~~h Court) 2094.

133. 1992 CriU (Bombay High Court) Ill Division Bench

Principle emerged:-

Main Principle Decided:-

The punishment awarded must be in consonance with the g.ravit! of the otkncc proved. There is no compulsion that a jail sentence must be awarded and it is for tlw, reason that the option of awarding either a jail sentence or a fine or both i:-, left to thL' ~iscretion of the court on an overall view of the case that a jail sentence would serve the ends of justice. Such a punishment would be in order. While a\varding the pum'>hment the consequences of such punishment and the point of time when It 1" a\\ arded Jre

relevant. If it appears to the court that a heavy fine would he more in comonance \\ 1th

the facts of the case. like for instance where the wife has complamed that -.he h;J-., suffered gravely, it may be some form of retribution to direct the husband to compen­sate her momentarily. On the facts of the case where the trial court had exercised judicial discretion and awarded a sentence of six month's R.I. that court had indicated the measure of punishment that the present offence deserves. We are of the view that the ld. Sessions Judge was perhaps justified in taking into account the age. the occupa­tion and family conditions of the respondent-husband who would have been complete I: ruined if he were to be jailed for a period of six months. While substituting that sen­tence by a fine the learned sessions Judge ought to have awarded a modest tine of R~. 30 .. 000/- only.

5.11.7 Sec.304 II of I.P.C. :

In Suhlwn -Vs- State ofRajasthan n-lthe accused was charged u/<.,. 30-+ Part-11 of the Indian Penal Code for culpable homicide not amounting to murder hy strangulation. Accused had illicit affair with another and suspected deceased wife to be unfaithtul His plea that deceased committed suicide by hanging was rejected by the trial court a~ the case was proved by other circumstances.

The Ld. trial Judge convicted the accused u/s.304 Part-11 read with Sec. 34 I.PC. and sentenced him to five years' R.I. with fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo three months' imprisonment. In appeal the Hon'ble High Court. considering the fact that the case was pending for more than 18 years' reduced the sentence already undergone hut as the fine amount was insufficient the Court enhanced the tine of Rs. 2001- to R~ 3.000/- only.

5.11.8 In State of Madhya Pradesh- Vs- Hari Singh & Others 11' The accused wa~

convicted u/s. 304 Part-L I.P.C. There was property dispute between the accused ;Jnd the deceased. The Accused injured the unarmed deceased and exceeded the right of private defence.

TI1e Ld. trial Judge convicted the accused person and sentenced him to-+ year< R.I. and tine of Rs. 1000/ ...

134. 1998 CriLJ (Rajasthan H1gh Court) 1667.

135. 1998 CriU (Madhya Pradesh High Court) 2815.

State preferred appeal and the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court observed m para 33 as follows:-

Para 33 :- Now comes the question of sentence of Hari Singh & Roop Singh and conviction is u/s. 304(Part-l) I.P.C. The state appealed for enhancement of -.entence ut

R.I. for 4 vears awarded bv trial court. The sentence u/s. 304 when 1t 1s not co' ered h' "' . -Sec. 302 I.P.C. because right of private defence has been exceeded. So spectallenu.:tK~ cannot be shown because right of private defence has been exceeded. The tnal coun was wrong in being lenient to these accused persons on this count. No other reasoning has been given to award such a low sentence. We are of the opinion that sentence ol

imprisonment for 10 years to each of the accused Hari Singh and Roop Singh should he

awarded along with fine Rs. 5,000/- each. We accept this appeal no. 329/87 b~ state and enhance the sentence of imprisonment of Hari Singh & Roop Singh respondents to R.I. for 10 years each and fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of fine further R.I. for

one year each.

5.11.9 Sections 279/304A I.P.C.

In Francis Xavier Rodrigues- Vs- the State UtJ there was rash and negligent driving

and the vehicle was driven on wrong side resulting and accident causing death of two persons and injuries to three persons Hence criminal negligence writ large on the pan of accused. The Ld. Trial Magistrate found the accused guilty and sentenced h1111 to

undergo 3 months S.I. and also to pay, a tine of Rs. 2.000/- tn default of payment of fine to undergo another two months S.l.

The Ld. addl. Sessions Judge, confirmed the conviction and sentence. The Hon'hle

Bombay High Court observed :

(Para 5 :-) "In order to show compassion in favour of the accused. over all conduct

of the accused is very important. As pointed out earlier. after having committed the

offence. which resulted in death of two persons and injuries to three other person:-..

strange defence has been taken by the accused that he was not driving the vehicle. that

too in absence of a single question suggesting to any of the witnesses.

Compassion cannot be shown forgetting the basic principle and purpose of intlicung

punishment on the culprits. The most important aspect while awarding sentence to an ac­

cused that the courts usually bear in mind is the basic object of the punishment. It 1:--. not on!::,

for inflicting punishment on the culprit for his criminality, but it should have deterrent ef­

fect on similar persons. Hundreds of motor vehicle accidents are occurring in our country

every day. For various reasons, particularly failure on the part of the prosecution to con­

duct the investigations efficiently and fairly. on technical grounds: only very few cases end

in conviction and many guilty drivers are let free. If the present trend is continued like thi:-..

without any check. one could imagine the menace that causes to the soctety. Therefore. ewn

136. 1997 CriU (Bombay H1gh Court. PanaJI Bench - Goa 1 1374

in case where the rwo courts have concurrently held that the petitioner accused guilty and

where the plea of compassion has not at all been taken by the accused before the lower

courts. I do not find any reason to exercise the discretion of this court at this stage to -;hov.

compassion to the accused and to release him by confining the sentence only to payn1em

of fine. Moreover. this will create an impression in the minds of the people that any guilt~

driver whatever may be the gravity of his negligence. can easily walkover by paying fahu­

lous amount by way of fine."

5.11.10 The State of Karnataka -Vs- Benoy Thomas 1l

7

In this case. the trial court has convicted the accused under Section 304A l.P.C. and

has sentenced the accused till rising of the court (TRC) and to pay a fine of Rs. 5.000/

-i.d. to undergo S.I. for six months. The state has challenged the sentence relying on a

judgement of the Supreme Court reported in State of Karnaraka -Vs- Krishna Raju. '''

The Supreme Court in that judgement has found fault in court's rendering tlea-bitc

sentence. The Supreme Court found that the conduct of the accused in that case wa-.

reprehensible where the accused failed to secure the medical a:-;sistance to the injured

person and also failed to report the accident to the police authorities. In the words ot

the Supreme Court here was a case where the respondent had not only driven his bus in

a reckless manner and caused the death of one person and injuries to another but he had

also attempted to escape prosecution by failing to report the accident to the police

authorities.

According to the accused he is a student and he has spent nearly about Rs. I 0.000/­

for treatment of the deceased and inspite of the same and all due necessary care taken by him he could not save the life of the deceased. In a criminal case while imposing sentence against the accused the prospects and future life of the accused has to he considered and given prime importance. In this case the accused is a student hy profe-.­sion and he has voluntarily appeared before the court and admined the offence agamst him. Keeping in mind the ratio held in Raju's case of the Supreme Court and also the fact that the accused was a student and also considering his future career. the Hon'hic Kamataka High Court passed the following sentence : "For the offence under ~ection 304A of the I.P.C. the accused is sentenced to be in the hall till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs. 5.000/-i.d. to undergo S.I. for 6 months".

5.12 Special Acts

5.12.1 Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1952.

In the State of Maharashtra -Vs- Ml'i. Simplex Woolen Mills and others ·\~the ac­cused person was guilty of sec.l4(2) of the Employees Provident Fund and Mi~cellanc-

137 19<)7 CnLJ tKarnataka Htgh Courtl. 1225

138. 19<)7 CnU t Bombay H1gh Court). 2079.

13Y. llJY7 CriU t Delhi) ~357.

ous Provisions Act 1952, for not submitting any return and as such he was connctcd hy

the ld. Magistrate on the plea of guilty with a prayer by the accused for a lesser punish­ment. The Ld. Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced the accused below the minimum punishment. The minimum punishment in Sec. 14(21 of this act is 3 months imprisonment and fine which may extend toRs. 2.000/-. However. the Ld. Court can award a sentence below the minimum punishment by showing adequate and speCial reasons. As the ld. Magistrate without showing any adequate and special reasons im­posed punishment below the minimum sentence. his sentence is liable to be set aside.

5.12.2 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954.

M.L.Gupra & Anorher-Vs- Delhi Adminisrmrion. 1411

It was held that the validity of Rule 47 prior to its amendment cannot be challenged on the ground of arbitrary exercise of power by the rule making authority. nor could the initiation of prosecution on the basis of violation of the said rule as it existed at the material time could be faulted. The knowledge about the effect of Saccharin on human body as accepted today may undergo a further change in future on the basis of further knowledge derived from research and analysis. If the rule making authority on the basis of knowledge widely accepted by the experts framed rule by imposing restriction on use of Saccharin in Pan Masala at a particular point of time, such exercise of power must be held to be valid. Thus, where the sample of pan Masala found to have con­tained only more quantity of Saccharin than permissible under the then existed R.47 and there was no allegation that the Pan Masala in question was of inferior qual it_\ or substandard. the offence committed on account of technical violation of R. 47 would not call for any deterrent punishmeflt. The manufacturer thus. was held liable for pay­ment of fine of Rs. 15.000/- only. (Paras 7.10).

5.12.3 Drugs and Cosmetics Act :

Srare olOrissa- \/- Janme_ijoy Dinda. f.IJ

The respondent was prosecuted before a Judicial Magistrate offirst Class U/s. 27h( ii 1

and Sec. 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Magistrate on conclusion of the triaL convicted respondent under both counts, and sentenced him to undergo S.l. for one month on the second count.

The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent which confirmed the conviction and sentence under both charges. But when he tiled a revision before the High Court of Orissa, the ld. Single Judge found that conviction under Sec. 2~ of the Act was unsustainable and hence respondent was acquitted of that offence. In the matter of sentence for the offence U/s. 27(b )( ii) of the Act ld. Single Judge reduced it to the period of imprisonment which had already been undergone and the fine was re­duced toRs. 3.000/-. The state of Orissa tiled S.L.P. before the Supreme Court again-..t the order of High Court of Orissa.

140. I'I<JX CnLJ 1SC1 2046

141. 199!l CriU (Bombay! 2105.

Hon'ble Supreme Court altered the acquittal to conviction and observed: ··However. while dealing with the sentence we are of the opinion that for failure to disclo\e the name of the person from whom he acquired the drugs. he need not be !->ent to J<Hl a\ WL'

feel that such failure could have happened perhaps because he was obln IOU'- of tht'

name and address of the person from whom he purcha\cd the drug. That apart. there h

no case for the drug inspector, or for the prosecution nse!L that any of the drugs sc1t.ed from the nursing home was either a spurious drug or a misbranded one or even a time expired medicine. It means that the drug seized would have been otherwise genume medicine.

Para I2 : Violation of Sec. 28 of the Act is punishable with either Imprisonment or with fine which may extend to Rs. I ,000/- or with both. In other words. sentence ot imprisonment is not compulsory. In such circumstances. a sentence of fine of R'>. I ,000/- would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice for section 28 of the Act so far as the facts in this case are concerned.

5.12.4 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985)

Kalema Tumha -Vs- Narcotic Control Bureau and Another :-1:

SS. 2I R/W.8(c), 23 r/w. 28- The accused was in jail for about 7 year-.. In default ot remitting fine he was to serve total period of 4 years and 6 months' R.I. Sentence im­posed in default of payment of fine reduced to 13 months' R.I.-Conviction and quantum of fine were maintained to meet the ends of justice (Para 11)

Para 10. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant in appeal submits that the appellant wa\ in jail for about 7 years and he must have suffered substantial sentence by this time. However. because of the failure to remit the fine. he has to serve total period of 4 years and 6 months besides substamive sentence. He submits that taking into consideration that the appellant was in jail he was not in a position to remit 2 lakh!-> and R'>. I 0.000/­which is awarded as fine, a lenient view may he taken with regard to the fine.

Para II. In view of this, we reduce the sentence awarded hy the court below in default of fine in the case of convicts I and 2 to 6 months each and in case or convict.'> No. 3 to one month. Therefore the sentence of the court below stand\ modified <h

shown below : f\6

A) Under Section 23 and U/s 28(8) (c) of the N.D.P.S .. R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. I lakh and in default R.I. for 6 months. "'

8) Although we maintain the conviction, the jail sentence. and the quantum of fine imposed on the appellant. we reduce the sentence imposed i.d. payment of fmc in the manner mentioned in para I I.

C) Under Section 21 r/w.8(c) of N.D.P.S. Act R.I. for 10 years and to pay a tine ut Rs. One lakh and in default to suffer R.I. for six months.

142. 19'JX CnLJ rCah:urra High Courtl 1660.

~ ~

D) Under Section 135( 1) (a) of the Custom~ Act he wa~ sentenced to suffer R.I. and fine and in default to suffer R.I. for 1 month. Sentence~ are to run concurrentlv.

Smt. Ravanamma -Vs- State '4 '

Narc otic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act ( 61 ot 1 91:S5 l Section 20( h )I l : re­covery of ganja. The Accused was house wife and was convicted for first time She had been recently married. Hence sentence of two year~ R.I. mstead of-+ year~ and fine of Rs. 2.000/- instead of Rs. I 0,000/- was imposed ( Para-20).

The ld. trial judge upon the facts held the appellant guilty and convicted her under the aforesaid section to undergo R.I. for a period of-+ years and to pay fine ot Rs I 0,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of SIX months.

The accused was guilty of possessing Ganja in a steel trunk and was convicted u/'>. 20(h)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act.. In appeal, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court pointed out some mitigating circumstances for reduction of a lenient sentence. Hon'ble Calcutta H1gh Court observed in para 20 of the judgement as follows :

Para 20 :- I affirm the findings of the ld. trial Judge. Now the question remains on the quantum of punishment. It appears that the accused/appellant is a housewife and she has been convicted for the first time. She has been recently married. Therefore. this case will be mitigated if the appellant/accused is directed to undergo two year< R.I. instead of four years and to pay fine a sum of Rs. 2000/- instead of Rs. I 0.()00/- and 111 default of paying such tine she shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further [)l'­

riod of one month.

5.12.5 Contempt of Courts Act 1971

The JudRe II Labour Court. Thane on its oH'/1 motion -Vs- R.S.Pwule . .;.;

The accused committed criminal contempt and interfered with due course ofjudiCial pro­ceedings. There was heated altercation between representative of labour uniOn and ad vo­cate. The former caught hold of collar of Advocate pulling him and did not pay any heed to request the court to stop. It amounted to interference with due course of judicial pro­ceedings going on in the court. The accused was guilty of criminal contempt.

Held : Para : 20 : In the instant case. we find no special reasons for imposing a sentence of imprisonment. In our view. a sentence of fine would suffice. The con­temner was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2.000/- to satisfy enJs of JUStH.:e.

HiRh Court ofKamaraka- V- Chinen Das and Others. 1 ~'

The accused was convicted u/s. 12(2) (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act for '>candal­izing the court. He made allegations of making false statement\ in judgement hy '>ittln~ High Court Judge. It was published in the Newspaper. It amounted to criminal 1-B l'.!'.!H Cn U Cakutla H1gh Court 1660

144. IYYH Cri!J !Bombay H1gh Court) 1892

145. 1997 Cri1J (Karnataka High Court) 4249

contempt. Apology tendered by contemner was not accepted

The High Court heard from the contemner hi-; career record. had;.~!:round anu the fact that he has been absolutelv free from contrite from the earliest pomt ot lllne and

that he had assured that there would never he an occasion when there would he all\ repetition of such a situation. Having regard to the well-settled principle of law that punishment must bear a direct nexus to the gravity of the offence. in considerin~ the view of overall circumstances and the fact that contemner assured that there would he no instance of repetition. a token punishment of fine of Rs. !Otll/- av.arued.

Rohkar Adalar- V-B. B. Sin~h. M.J.M. ~"

The contemner. a judicial magistrate attributed m his report bias and moll\ es tJn the

part ofjudges of the High Court and used scandalous language. He was held gllllt; anJ sentenced till rising of the court and fine of Rs. 500/-.

Stme of Bihar- V- Kamakshm Naravan Singh 14 ~

The Contemner filed writ under Article 32 before the Supreme Court alleging that he could not expect fair and impartial justice from Chid Justice and Judges of H1gh Court as they were intluenced by chief minister and other ministers as state wa-. oppo­site party. He was sentenced to T.R.C. and fine of Rs. I 0001-.

In Vinod MahesH ari & Otht'rs. 14s

The contemner issued cyclostyled matter in press conference alleging High Court J uLlgL' helping Chief Minister in election-petition. He was sentenced to pay fine of R-,. l 000/-

Abdul Jahbar- V- R.K.Kuranjia 14 <~

The contemner published an article interfering in course of justice. He wa:-. :-.cn­tenced to 15 days' imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2.000/- though he submitted apology but It was belated one.

Shamin Rehmancr- V- ZinaT Kwlsm• Dt'lwh·i 1'

11

The contemner published an article in a magazine concerning pending appeal again\\ conviction for murder. He was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.l.OOOI-.

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.l973

Union of India -V- Shah Jelwn " 1

In this case heavy amount brought in India without proper channel. First authority levied penalty and confiscation. but Appellate Board increased penalty substanti\'dy but cancelled confiscation. 146. l%5 12\ CnLJ l,!.JO: AIR l%'i PJtnJ VAl

147 t%7 C'nU 4Y~. AIR \'J67 \1P tO-t

141-1. l'J70C'nLJ 11-1:2 .AIR !970Bomha! 4S.

1-tLJ 1'171 Crd.J I :'il-:6

I 'ill l'ILJS CnLJ 1 Kcral.1 Ht~h Cuurt 1 27))

I 'i I 1'11-:Y CnLJ On~~<~ I (J2:2

Hon 'ble Madras High Court observed a:-; follow-.. :

Para 9: No doubt. while dealing with the levy of penalty m paragrarh 3. ol the order of the appellate Board. the Board has held that the re..,ronucnl ha-..

surreptitiously brought into the country a heavy amount resortmg to the h:mkm~ channel. On that ground it increased the penalty to Rs. 20.1)00/- whtle Jealing with the confiscation in question paragraph 4 of Its order. it ho\\'e' er "ct astllc the confiscation of Rs.50.000/- This setting aside could be constdered as on!: because of the substantial increase of the penalty original!~ levied. No doubt the appellate Board also refers to certain earlier orders ot the Board tn -.;upport m

setting aside order. But it does not state what actuallv ts the content of the '-<lid ~ ~

orders. though it says that applying ratio of these orders. there appear" IHl

justification for confiscation, in a c.ase such as the presenl one. \\'here the respomknt herein is able to identify the source from which he received the amount. Now

of the two rival counsel appearing before me also is able to produce a copy ol the said earlier orders of the Board. relied on in the impugned appellate order. Any way. as we have already stated. the setting aside of the confiscation wa" presumably because of the substantial increase in the penalty. ordered h\ thl' appellate Board.

5.12.7. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT. 1881

Hu"Rhese- V- CK.Ranwni. 1 ~ 2

The Hon'ble Kerala High Court held the respondent guilty of the offence punishable u/s.l38 of the Negotiable instrument Act for dishonour of cheque. The Htgh Court al'-( 1

observed that instead of remitting the case to the !own court only lor the purpo"L' ol awarding the sentence, in the interest of justice this appellate court could award the sentence. Therefore the respondent was found guilty of the offence punishable u/s 13X of the Act and convicted and sentenced her to pay a line of R-,. I 0.()00/- in default ol payment to undergo S.I. for three months. In the event of payment of tine the appell;lllt would be entitled toRs. 9.000/-.

5.12.8 The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act

In Sekh Gunny -V- State of Orissa, the accused possessed t\\'O hags of coal-, wct~h­ing 40 kg. Fine ofRs.lOO/- was awarded u/s 306 R.PU.P Act.

Stare l~(M.P -Vs·· Chandan Singh l'i'

The accused was convicted and sentenced to fine of Rs. 3000/-

Swte of UP -V- Ram Dass 15 ..

The accused pos\essed 5 kg. copper dust. he long in~ to raikay. He\\ a" -.,eniL'nl·l·d t1) line of Rs. I 000/-. I~:! I9SIJ CnLJ 10~-l

l-53. IY76 CnU i.j()l

154. 1'!76 CnLJ 243.

Murarilaf- V- State ol UP !''

The accused possessed one barring brass piece weighing 3.250 Kg. He wa-. -.en­tenced to one year S.I. and fine of Rs. 1.0001-.

5.12.9. The Arms Act :

Lalji -V- State of UP l)a

The accused possessed 'Karauli' having 19 C.M.blade without licence He was -.,en­tenced to fine of Rs. 100/-.

State -V- Bishna 1:;7

The accused possessed 34 live cartridges of 12 bore without licence. He wa-.. sen­

tenced to tine of Rs .. 100/-.

Malwdeva -V- State I)~

The accused possessed revolver without licence. He was sentenced to 3 month-. and

tine of Rs.300/-.

Jaloha -V- State of Haryana 1:;4

The accused possessed M.L.Gun 6 pieces and 25 grams gun powder without licence.

He was sentenced to one year and tine of Rs. 500/- as accused was old man.

5.12.10 The Essential Commodities Act

State -V- Pratap Chand 1 ~ 1

The accused was selling 12 bags of maize to Gram Panchayat for feeding pigeons in

contravention of Licence. He was sentenced to tine Rs.ISO/-.

Sture -V- Champat Raj 101

The accused was convicted for movement of 15 bags of bajara without permit. He was sentenced to fine of Rs. 100/- as offence was technical and committed bclorc X

years.

Ratan -V- State 162

The accused was convicted for moving 49 bags of gram to M.P. contravening Prohi­bition of Exports Order. He was sentenced to fine of Rs.1 000/-.

155. I f.J76 CnLJ 479.

156. I Y6~ RLW. 3YX

157 IY7Y Cr. LR IR:tj.J'>Ih<.ml ~OY

l'iX IYYI Cr L R 1SC1 XY

I ~Y I YXO Cr L R 1 R<lid'!h.ln 1 471

160 IYX4 Cr. L.R IR.JFl\lhanl Y7

\61 IYXX 11 I R.L W 275.

162 I'IXO CnLJ 1157

Darbara Sinf{h -V- State ofHaryana !6

·'

The accused was attempting to smuggle bajara from Haryana to Punjab in a truck. He was sentenced to fine of Rs.2000/-.

COURT EXPERIENCE

From my court experience as a Prosecutor of the metropolitan magi-.trate court. I have noticed that fine amounts are fixed at random without considering the attendant circumstances of the convict. The spirit of sentence-hearing u/s 2-.+g( 2) of Cr. P.C. Jl)7 3 is not observed properly and the directives of the Hon'ble Supreme Court a-. ohsened in Santa Singh Ys. State of Punjab 164 is not followed at all. Hon'ble Supreme Court 111

Santa Sjngh 's case observed.

··· The purpose of hearing, before passing the sentence is to direct the court's atten­tion to such matters as the nature of the offence. the circumstances - extenuating or

aggravating of the offence, the prior criminal record if any. of the offender. the age. the record as to employment. the background of the otlender with reference to education. home life sobriety and social adju~tment emotional and mental condition of the of­fender. the prospects of the rehabilitation. the possibility. that sentence may serve as a deterrent to crime to the otfender onto others and the current community needs. if any. for such a deterrent in respect to the particular type of offence ... This is the ha-.is ol modem technology in the sentencing proces-.. The sentcncmg - Pnnciple tn S<tnt<t Singh's case is not followed by the sentencing magi-.tratcs at all.

fine amount fixed by the ld 13th metropolitan magistrates in contested cases

Sections 279 I 337 I 338 I 304A l.P.C. following disparities arc observed (Table - I) ld 13th Metropolitan Magistrate has tixed fine amount in some cases Uls 279 I.P.C. as Rs. 2001-. Rs. 1000/-. Rs. 500/-, Rs. 300/-. Rs. 4001-. Rs. 8001- in almost similar cir­cumstances showing a wide disparity in the sentencing process. Ld. sentencing magt-.­trate in all such situations did not mention at all. what arc the aggravaung ctrcum­stances and \vhat are the mitigating·circumstances.

There has been no balance between the aggravating & the mitigating factors. The stage of sentence- hearing has not been observed properly in these cases. for furni.-.h­ing the mitigating factors. The amount of fine imposed in these cases is thcrclorc without any justification and rationality.

Fine in Contested Petty Cases

Section 35- IV- 66 Calcutta Police Act : -

lin this case. the maximum amount of tine is Rs. I 000/- for running a place of Puhlic enlenainmenr. wilhout having any Calcutta Police L1ccncc.

lo3. ll!XO CnLJ 1157

lo-l.AlR ll!7'i SC 23X6: IY76 Cnl 1 lX75

In the table - 2. it is seen that in the contested petty ca-.cs id. magistrate ha-. fixed fine of Rs. 200/- . Rs. 700/-, Rs. 900/- without discovering the aggra\atmg and mitigating factors. Ld. 13th M.M. has fixed fine amounts in the judgement. without balancing the aggravating and the mitigating factors without a-.signing any rea:~on.

Fine amount fixed in guilty - pleading cases :

It is the custom that in case an accused. pleads guilty. his case on the point of sentence is generally considered with leniency because at the first instance. he pleads guilty without wasting time of the court. But fixation of any fine amount has no scientific basis. It differs from magistrates to magistrates while fixing the fine amount. The Ld. magistrate in fixing the fine-amount. has no yard-sud. on the point of fixation of fine. as a· result. large disparity is noticable on the point of sentencing.

Plea of Guilty in the Calcutta Police Act 1866 :

Huge no. of Petty cases are sentenced to fine when the accused person-. appear before the court and plead guilty. The cases are under sections ( i) 66-IV-66 ( ii) 66A -IV -66 (iii) 68A IV- 66 (iv) 68 - IV - 66 (v) 430 IV 66 (vil 62 -ce­IV - 66 (vii) 35 - IV- 66 of the Calcutta Police Act. The number of Petty ca-.c-. are so large in numbers that it is almost impossible to make a complete survey for one month. where one day's case-survey is large. For the sample survey. I have selected my court i.e .. 13th M.M. court wherein. I am attached for the last Ten years.

I have made only one day's survey i.e. on 4.1.99 and observed the following amount of fines have been attached :-

Sections of the Calcutta Police Act : Fine imposed by magistrates

(1) 66- IV- 66 Rs. 10/-

(2) 68- IV - 66 Rs. 5/-

( 3) 62 - cc - IV 66 Rs. 50/- id. S.I. for 5 days

In major portion of these cases are pleaded guilty u/s 66 - IV - 66 of the C. PAct. In each and every case under this section a fine amount of Rs. 1 0/-is fixed without considering the specific aggravating and mitigating factors of the individual offender. There is no scope for consideration of these two factors in petty C<hes. Magistrate whimsically fixes same line amount i-. all type-. of offender ..... \\ hich I'> a burning example of irrationality in the "entencing proce-.-.. The cxpenenn· Is shown in Table - 5.1.

Table- 5.1

Examples of unjustified fine in the 13th Metropolitan Magistrate Court with­out maintaining any principle during 1993- 97"

Case No. Name of Parties i Section Punishment I I

I. GR 1553/93 State I 279/\1,7 !PC For 21 lJ. R_, 2()(! ld Sl

Ys. tor ~ Jd\'

Yivekananda Jha For 1,1,7 .Rs I OW- 1d S.l

tor = Lld \ '

2. GR 2978/93 State Vs. Prem Jain I 188 IP.C Fme <J! Rs i ( J(i I.J \l

to1 2 Ja''

3. GR 3017/93 State 279/337 J.P. C. For 279. Rs 2001- J.J

Ys. S.I. 5 day'

Sanat Nath Rs. 1001- J.d. S.I for

2 days.

4. GR 1516/93 State Ys. 279/304A IP.C. For. 279 Fine Rs I ()()(}!-

Jhantu Karmakar 1d S.I t()rJOJc~,,

5. GR 1442/94 State 279/1\'11. IYC I I R_, ~001- ld Sl fl \I

Vs. I() Ja\' tur 27Y 1

N1rmal Saha Rs 1001- 1d. S.I I ill

12 Ja\' u/, \\X I PC 2(1 i_<J..,

6. GR 2563/95 State Ys. Suleman 283 IP.C. hneR, 15()1. J.d Sl It \I

10 Ja,' 2l ..,,_y--:

7. GR 764/95 State Ys. Jawal Prasad 279 IP.C. Fine:\()(); .. 1.d S.l tur

15 Javs -+I 0.%

8. GR I 972/95 State Ys. B.N.Das 283/114 IP.C. Fine 1001- i.d. S I for

2 davs S !() 96

9 PTR 3631/96 State Ys. · _\5-IY-6h Fme I F1nc R_, I OW- S I It ll

I 0.7 lJh ~awal ChauraSia I h month' c~11 p,Jilll.

! ALl. I 1-- 'J Y~

10. C872/96 State Ys. Nimchand 22A min. wage Rs. 4()()! .. J.d. S.I for

5 days

I I . C I .\0/% State Ys. 22A 111111 "age 6 lJ lH1 R, 2~()/ .. I J Sl Mathura Das Kothen I tor I(!,_Lt'' I

i

12. C I 772N6 State Ys. Pill 1 1~121

I hne Rs. IOUt-1J Sl

Yikash Mehra 19(4) 21(4) less.'ida\s 16.II.%

Mm. Wage ICon rd.

Table- 5.1 rContd ..... 1

I I

Case No. Name of Parties Section

I Punishment

I 13. GR 2786/96 State v.,.

I 2X.~ iPC I R, I 1 lUI- 1 . J. S . i !ell

Har Pal Singh i ) ltn , i ...+ i I Y(·

I

14. PTR 3536/94 State Vs. Samiullah 35-IV-66 C.P. Act. R~. 200/- 1.d. S.l \ll

.'i Ja)'

15 C765/85 State V s. 162( I l Fine each accounr Merchants Syndicate Companv Act R-, P·8U 1.d. S I tor

3 month'

16.PTR 1342/94 State Vs. 62-cc-IV-66 R~ 80/- i.d S.I. for

Abdul Nair C.P. Act. 2 da\ '·

17. C458/97 State Ys. 22A min. Fine Rs )00/- i d. SI G.Chandra Wages Act for I month

18.PTR 3538/94 State Vs. 35-IV-66 R~ 4001- 1.J. SI tur

Jalil Ahmed C.P. Act. IOda\'

19. PTR 1415/97 State Vs. 68-IV-66 R' 201- fi nc 1.d Sl I OI

D. Singh C.P. Act. 2 Jay'

20. GR 3170/97 State 279. R~ 1000/- for 27LJ i J S I Vs. 338 J.P.C. for I month R, I 0001-

B.Mondal for ·nx IPC I.D lui I month un i j(jl)i

2 I.GR 968/97 State y.,.,_ 14 R~ 500;- 1.J. S I t ( ll'

Sk. Kalam· Foreigner's Act. !Odav' 17.7LJ7

~:2. GR 1122/97 State Ys. Saki! I4 R,. 5001- 1.d Sl for foreigner's Act. I 0 da\ s

23. PTR I 556/96 State Ys. 35 -IV -6(, Fmc Rs lj()()!- J.J Sl

D.Adhikary C.P. Act. for one month

24. PTR 16I6 /95 State Vs. 62-CC -Iv-66 R,. 501- 1.d S.J. tor

LB Singh C.P. Act. one month.

25.PTR 318 I 95 State Ys. 35 -IV -66 Rs. 500/- 1.d. S.I. for

A. Hussain C.P. Act. one month.

26. GR 1250/97 State Vs 14 S.I 4 llHlflths + FI!lL'

A.A1i Foreigner\ :\Lt Rs 'i(HJ:- 1.d S I I~ de~\, -

2.7 .GR I 456/97 State Vs. 14 S.l.FIIlc for 4 rnunth-,+ Zakir Hussain Foreigner's Act. )00/- 1.d. S.I. .\Oda\s

Table- S.lrcontd ..... ,

Case No. Name of Parties Section Punishment

28.GR 1651 I 97 State Ys. 1-l S.I.for -+month'~ hnc

A.Howladar Foreigner\ Acr. ut R, ~()IJ,- 1.u .'l i ! .; Jdl \

29.PTR 2578/97 State Ys. .35-IV-66 Fllle f<., -~~~~- I J ~I

ManoJ Pillam C.P. Act. "l,lJ da~'

30.PTR 3338/94 State Ys. 35-IY-66 R~. 700/- 1.d Sl 30 da~'

S.Routh C.P. Act. 21. j 1.97

31 .PTR 3536/94 State Ys. 35-IY-66 R~ 200/- i d. S I. tor

Samiullah C.P. Act. 5 dav'

32. PTR 1556/96 State Ys. 35-IY-66 FineR~. lJ{)(J/-td. S I

D.Adhikary C.P. Act. for I month

33. PTR 3338/94 State Ys. 35-IY-66 Fine of R~. 7001- 1.d S I

S.Routh C.P. Act. fm .30 da ~'

Source : 13th Metropolitan Magistrate Court. Calcutta

5.13 EYolving a mathematical formula in fixing amountofline

5.13.1 In the criminal Justice administration there is no fixed formula for determin­ing the quantum of fine. The Ld. sentencing Judges fix the tine amount according to their discretion. In most of the cases. the fine amount is inflicted without any norm. principle or formula. The Prescription of fine in such situation becomes a mere gue:-.:-.­work. All the attending circumstances of the convict must he taken into consideration while fixing the tine amount. The fine amount to he inflicted on a particular convict depend upon the proper balancing between aggravating and mitigating factor'>. Thu-.. the fine amount can be ascertained by the formula -Q= Qmax (A-M) R'>.

I :2

where. Q = Quantum of fine to be imposed on the offender

A =Value of the aggravating factor or factors

M =Value of the mitigating factor or factors

Qmax =Maximum amount of tine mentioned in the statute.

Here the formula is the same as in the ca'>e of imprisonment. only change may he observed at the end of the formula. i.e. Rs. (Rupees) ha'> been written instead of year" because fine is expressed in terms of rupees only.

While calculating the fine. it may be noted that m ~orne ~ect10n~ ot the i.P.C the upper limit of fine has not been fixed though it IS a case tnable by a magistrate ln -.,ud1

a situation though. according to seCtion 63 I.P.C.. tine amount is unlimited It i' to he

taken as Rs. 5.000/- because it is the maximum amount of tine can be intlicteJ h\ thL· magistrate.

5.13.2. Application of the formula in decided cases -

]n Naih Singh- \ls- State of Punjab 16~ the accused was a teacher in a Go\ t. SlhtHli caused fracture injury on head by Gandasa (S.326 I.P.C. ). He was sentenced tu Till Rising of the Court and fine of Rs. 5,000/- as the accused was a teacher 111 a Gtl\·t School and as the incident was 13 years old. The value of A and M as has been ex.­

plained earlier remained unchanged. ( Table - in Chapter - )

Here , A = 12, as the offence was committed in aggravated form

M = 4 (incident was 13 years old)

M = 2 (Teacher in a Govt. School)

Total M = 6

Here Qmax = Rs. 5000/- (the maximum fine can be inflicted by a magistrate J

Q = Om ax (A - M) Rs. 12

= 5000 (12-6) Rs. 12

= 5000 X 6 12

= 2500 Rs.

The fine amount should have been Rs. 2500/- which has been doubled here.

Sec 304A I.P.C.

Jn re N.P.Ganesan 166, the accused a bus driver hitted pedestrian (S.304 IPC). A tine

of Rs, 2000/- only was awarded as the accused was 55 years' old. being in servicl' for 28 years and incident was 8 years old.

A = 12. Qmax = 5000Rs.

M = 2 (Aged about 55 years)

165. 19S6 CnLJ 2061: AIR 19!\6 SC 2192.

166. IYHY CnLJ !Madra~) 1160.

2 (long vear'> service) '- .

2 (Incident 8 years· old)

Total M = 6 points

Q = 5000 ( 12- 6) Rs. 12

= 5000 x 6 Rs. 12

= Rs. 2500/-

which is near to the fine imposed in the case. Hence this decision is 4uite L·orrcct

according to this formula.

In Man Singh Vs State of M.P 167 there was cuttingof nose of mother. The accw .. eJ was a 17 years· youth and was released on undergone (one year) and fine of Rs. 2000/

- as incident was 13 years' old.

Here. Qmax = Rs. 5000/- [maximum amount of fine a magistrate can impose I

A= 12

M = 4 ( 17 year's old and incident was 13 year's old. i.e. 2 + 2 = 4 )

Q = 5000 ( 12 - 4lRs. 12

= 5000 x ~ Rs. 12

= Rs. 3.333/-

The fine amount should have been more than what was imposed.

In State Vs. fndra Badan 168($.354 IPC) - the accused a youngman outraged modesty of 9 or 10 years' old girl. Fine of Rs. 2000/- was awarded as incident was 14 years' old.

Here. Qmax = Rs. 5000 [maximum amount of fine a magistrate can impos]

A= 12

M = 4 ( the incident was 14 years old )[ M for 7 year'= 2 pPinh I

lo7. IYlJI C'1.LR tSCi 5.~0

16H. I YXo Cr L.R. 1 RaJasthan I ) II.

Q = 5000 ( 12 - 41 12

= 5000 X 8 12

= Rs. 3333 1-

Thus the amount of fine should have been at least Rs. 3000/-.

In Dhana Ram Vs State 16'~ there was injury to little finger of. left hand- 6 month' S.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- was awarded as accused was 18 years' old and close-rei atm.' of the injured.

Qmax =Rs. 5000/- [ maximum amount of fine a magistrate can impo\e I

A= 12

M= 6 (young age below 20 =4. family dispute = 2)

Q = Omax (A- MLRs. 12

= 5000 X ( 12 - _fi} 12

= 5000 X 6 12

= Rs. 2500

So. Fine amount should have been Rs. 2500/- and not Rs. 1000/-

State ofTripura Vs. Swapan De_v(S. 326 I.PC.) 170

It was a case of grievous hurt caused by accused. But the accused was a young man. 17 years were elapsed after commission of offence. Accused got married and had two children. Taking in view of the manner in which deceased was killed and that the Young woman was left husbandless- accused was sentenced to 3 112 years R.I. and tine of Rs. 1.000/-

Benefit of 5.360 Cr.PC. was not granted to accused.

Here.A= 12

But M = 2 (Youngman)

ltl<.i. 1<.!~~121 RLW 500

170. 1<)()7 CnU 1Gauhat1 H1gh Court) 2032.

4 ( 17 Years' Pendency of criminal case) 2 ( Maintenance of wife + 2 children 1

M =8

As the offence is u/s 326 l.P.C. and triable by a Magistral~ . the maximum fine a magistrate can attach is Rs 5000/-.

Now.

Q = Qmax (A- Ml_Rs. 12

= Rs. 5000 x {12-8)

12

= 5000 X 4 H 3

= Rs. 500() 3

= Rs. 1666/-

Thus the sentence should have been at least for Rs. 15001- and not Rs.l 000/-

In K.Perumal Vs. State 171 the accused was convicted under S-304A of IPC for hit­ting his vehicle negligently to a cyclist. Accused helped In taking victim to Hospital. he was 56 years' old. The accused was sentenced to tine of Rs. 30001-

Here.

A= 12

M = 2 (as accused helped the victim taking to Hospital)

2 (as accused was 56 years'old)

M=4

Q = Qmax (A-M} Rs. 12

== Rs.5000 ( 12 - 4} Rs. 12

= 5000 X 8 12

171. liJlJH CnLJ I Madra> H1gh Court) +no.

= Rs. 3332/-

= Rs. 3000/- (Approximately)

The sentence imposed by the ld. Sessions Judge was just what has been calculated from formula of tine.

In Indramani ]ena- Vs- State of Orissa in there was a case under S. 304A I.P.C. for Rash and negligent driving and knocking down of an old man by bullock cart. The Bullock cart was driven with high speed just when deceased was 5-6 feet away and the road was neither crowded nor congested. Accused was held guilty of rash and negli­gent driving. But the accused was 30 years' old. A sentence of rigorous impnsonmem for 2 months u/s 279 and 6 months u/s 304A reduced to fine of Rs. 5000/- only by the

High Court.

Here. A= 12

Qmax for 304A == Rs.SOOO/- (it is the maximum amount of fine a magistrate can

impose)

M = 2 (tender age of accused)

A-M= 12-2= 10

Q = Qmax 1 A-MJ Rs. 12

= 5000 X 10 12

= R~. 4166/-

Thus. Hon 'ble Orissa High Court by converting the amount of imprisonment to fine of Rs. 5000/- was near to our calculated result .

5.14. A Sum_UJJ

5.14.1. The Ld. Sentencing Judge shall consider the age. character. antecedents. family background. and circumstances under which the offender committed the of­fence, i.e.the mitigating and aggravating factors are to be balanced while tixing the appropriate tine.

The following points have been emerged in fixing the proper anmunt of fine from the cases studied in this chapter :

172. 1()92 CnLJ 10m~a High CounJ 72.

1) The amount of fine shall not be too much excessive and it must be rational and

justified and according to the circumstances of the case.

2) The attending circumstances of the case shall have to he given prime con-.,Idcra­tion in fixing the fine amount.

3) The financial position of the accused -;hall have to he given due consideration while fixing the penalty of fine. No fine shall be fixed by the court which i-.. beyond the financial capacity of the accused.

4) In the case of a first offender. the tine amount should always be lenient.

5) Fine should be treated as a primary consideration of pumshment mstead of Im­prisonment, because there are many inherent defects in the pnson system .. There i-. no sufficient means for reformation. maintenance. treatment and rehabilitatiOn of the

pnsoners.

6) If fine is encouraged, large amount of fines will be collected and that will enhance the Govt. Revenue. In this way. the fund of the Govt. will he utilised for better admin­

istration of justice.

7) High Amount of compulsory minimum line has been pre-..crihed in the N.D.P.S Act, Copy Right Act, etc. But if the accused person\ tinanc1al condition is consider­

ably much lower and the accused is unable to pay the high amount. infliction of line becomes totally fruitless. Thus when an accused is sentenced to pay minimum amount of tine either in the Copy Right Act orthe N.D.P.S. Act. it has he en the trend of the High Court decisions to impose small amount and S.l. of 6 months instead of Huge amount of minimum fine, which considers rethinking.

8) It would be better to impose a smaller imprisonment and Higher line if the fine amount can be deposited by the accused provided his financial situation Is better.

9) In majority of cases u/s. 279/304A I.P.C. tine should he imposed in-..tead of im­

prisonment.

· 1 0) In case of Govt. servants committing any offence for which fine is one of the

punishments, court may impose fine instead of imprisonment.

II) In case of habitual offenders who repeats the offence again and again. higher shall be the fine amount.

] 2) A portion of the fine amount should be given to the victim by way of compensa­

tion U/s. 357 Cr. P.C.

B) Where fine is an alternative punishment. it should he given prime-importance instead of jail.

14) In many sections of the Indian Penal Code. the Upper limit of fine amount ha-., not been fixed in the statute. it is according to Sec. 63 I.P.C.. unlimited. hut court-., arc not very rational in fixing the amount of tine.

15) The aggravating and mitigating factors of the offender shall haw to he g:I \en o uc consideration before int1iction of fine by applying the proposed mathemaucaltormula

16) According to Sec. 67 I.P.C. the maximum amount of Imprisonment. m default u! payment of fine where the amount of fine exceeds one hundred rupees Is six months. This law has created an example of inadequate punishment. The I d. sentencmg Judge. has to fix 6 months"' S.I. in default of fine of Rs. I lakh which is an inadequate punish­ment. Hence Sec. 67 of I.P.C. needs to be amended in this respect. if it is applicable to N.D.P.S. Act.

17) A substantial amount of fine may be given to victim for which the scope ot section 357, 258, 259 of Cr. P.C. be widened in victimological perspectl\es

18) For finding out the mitigating factors. the Pre-sentence-hearing of the accusco shall have to be given due consideration and the pre-sentence investigation report ot the accused shall have to be collected before imposition of tine.

19) The Ld. Sentencing Judge should state the reasons while imposing an;. quanlllm of fine in the judgement which is mostly absent in majority of decisions.

20) The imposition of fmes in petty offences like Police Act need rethinking and

reformulation of laws in view of economic value of the tines.

21) Lastly, the aggravating and mitigating factors have to be considered properly and balanced by applying the mathematical formula

Q = Qmax (A-M)Rs. 12

A Sentencing Judge shall search for all the mitigating factors and make a summation of all these factors by careful value putting and then will balance these two factors h;. putting in the above equation.