Summary
The Supreme Court rejected concurrent running of multiple default-imprisonment terms but reduced their duration in view of the appellant’s financial circumstances. Default imprisonment was distinct from substantive punishment, and the statutory power to make substantive sentences concurrent did not extend to default terms. The fines remained ₹4,000 across four IPC counts and ₹15 lakh across three MCOCA counts. Default terms were reduced to one month for each IPC count and one year for each MCOCA count, aggregating three years and four months. The judgment was to be sent immediately to the jail.
Issues
- Whether imprisonment imposed for default in paying separate fines could run concurrently inter se.
- Whether the appellant’s financial circumstances justified reducing fines or default terms.
Provisions considered
- Sections 63 and 64, Indian Penal Code, 1860Fine without a statutory maximum should not be excessive, while section 64 treated default imprisonment as additional to other imprisonment. The Court found no power to make separate default terms concurrent. (¶¶ 7, 9–15)
- Sections 30, 31, 427, 428 and 429(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Powers concerning concurrent substantive sentences did not extend to default terms. Set-off and sequencing provisions reinforced the distinction between substantive and default imprisonment. (¶¶ 7, 9–15)
- Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4), Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999Each relevant count required a minimum ₹5 lakh fine. Those fines were retained, while the default-imprisonment term on each count was reduced from three years to one year. (¶¶ 8, 13, 16–17)
Held
- Default imprisonment was a consequence of non-payment distinguishable from substantive punishment. It could not merge with a substantive sentence, and the discretion under sections 31 and 427 to make substantive sentences concurrent did not provide such authority for default imprisonment. (¶ 7–12)
- Multiple default terms could not be directed to run concurrently inter se. Doing so would undermine separate fines and their deterrent consequences, particularly where the statute mandated a minimum fine on each count. The trial court’s direction that all sentences run concurrently did not justify the requested treatment of default terms. (¶¶ 2, 11–15)
- The appellant’s family circumstances warranted sympathetic consideration of the duration of default imprisonment. The four IPC fines, totalling ₹4,000, were moderate, and the three MCOCA fines of ₹5 lakh each reflected the statutory minimum. The fines were therefore maintained. (¶¶ 4–6, 15–17)
- Default imprisonment was reduced to one month on each of the four IPC counts and one year on each of the three MCOCA counts, aggregating three years and four months if no fine was paid. The Court recorded that three years of default imprisonment had already been served. The appeal was allowed in those terms, with immediate transmission of the judgment to the jail. (¶ 16–18)
Result
Appeal allowed to reduce default imprisonment to an aggregate three years and four months. Total fines of ₹15,04,000 retained; concurrent default terms refused. Judgment to be transmitted immediately to the jail.