1936 JTR(Mad) 456
1937 AIR(Mad) 406 ; 169 IndCas 607
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Pandrang Row, J.
In Re: Kanda Mooppan
Versus
Decided On : 27.11.1936
The main legal point established is that a Criminal Court is not competent to direct concurrent sentences of imprisonment for default in payment of fines, as per Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 35 - Competency of Criminal Court to Direct Concurrent Sentences of Imprisonment
Fact of the Case:
The District Magistrate of Ramnad raised a question regarding the competency of a Criminal Court to direct concurrent sentences of imprisonment for default in payment of fines.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the direction for concurrent sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of fines was illegal and therefore cancelled.
Issues: The issue was whether a Criminal Court is competent to direct concurrent sentences of imprisonment for default in payment of fines.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which specifies that the direction for concurrent sentences can only be given in respect of sentences of imprisonment or transportation.
Final Decision: The direction of the Sub-Magistrate for concurrent sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of fines was deemed illegal and cancelled.
Section 35 - Competency of Criminal Court to Direct Concurrent Sentences of Imprisonment
Fact of the Case:
The District Magistrate of Ramnad raised a question regarding the competency of a Criminal Court to direct concurrent sentences of imprisonment for default in payment of fines.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the direction for concurrent sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of fines was illegal and therefore cancelled.
Issues: The issue was whether a Criminal Court is competent to direct concurrent sentences of imprisonment for default in payment of fines.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which specifies that the direction for concurrent sentences can only be given in respect of sentences of imprisonment or transportation.
Final Decision: The direction of the Sub-Magistrate for concurrent sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of fines was deemed illegal and cancelled.
ORDER
Pandrang Raw, J.
1. 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 A.I.R. 1926 Bom 62 : 91 Ind. Cas. 543 : 27 Cri.L.J.111 : 27 Bom L.R.1351, Shidlingappa Gurulingappa v. Emperor AIR1926Bom416 Emperor v. Ghulam Ahmad 118 Ind. Cas. 224 : A.I.R. 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.