The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that default sentences, the sentences awarded in lieu of non-payment of fine, cannot run concurrently inter se..The judgement which was delivered by a Bench of Justices UU Lalit and AM Sapre gives the rationale behind the same, stating,.“if the default sentences awarded in respect of imposition of fine in connection with two or more offences are to be clubbed or directed to run concurrently, there would not be any occasion for the persons so sentenced to deposit the fine in respect of the second or further offences. It would effectively mean imposition of one single or combined sentence of fine.”.It was further stated by the Court that an exercise of clubbing default sentences with the statutory sentence and directing their concurrent operation would effectively nullify the deterrent effect of the imposition of a fine..“Such an exercise would render the very idea of imposition of fine with a deterrent stipulation while awarding sentence in default of payment of fine to be meaningless..… If imposition of fine and prescription of mandatory minimum is designed to achieve a specific purpose, the very objective will get defeated if the default sentences were directed to run concurrently.”.The Court delivered this judgment in a Special Leave Petition in Sharad Hiru Kolambe vs the State of Maharashtra wherein the petitioner had challenged the Bombay High Court judgment that affirmed his conviction under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act). However, the specific question before the Supreme Court was regarding the default sentence..Factual Matrix.The appellant was arrested in 2001 and he was not released during the trial and pendency of the appeal and had effectively completed a jail term of fourteen years in August 2015. The appellant was directed to be released by the Government of Maharashtra upon completion of a term of 14 years. However, he is now serving a default sentence for non-payment of fine imposed on him..As regards the financial condition of the appellant’s family, the Probation Officer, District Women and Child Welfare Department, Raigad, Alibaug submitted a report which found that the appellant’s family was in a state of starvation..Submissions made before the Supreme Court.Senior Counsel Colin Gonsalves appearing for the appellant submitted that the cumulative fine imposed on the appellant under all the provisions he was found guilty under, added to over Rs. 15 lakh and considering the financial state of his family, it was clear that the appellant was not in a position to pay this fine..Further, it was also submitted by Gonsalves that while the cumulative jail term for default of payment of fine comes up to 10 years, the lower Court ordered that all the sentences run concurrently inter se and by that rationale, even the default sentences should run concurrently and therefore, should be considered to be three years..The Counsel for the State of Maharashtra, Nishant Katneshwarkar, submitted that default sentences cannot run concurrently and placed reliance upon Supreme Court and Madras High Court judgments to buttress his argument..Katneshwarkar, however, also submitted that the quantum of the default sentence could be reduced given the financial condition of the appellant..The Judgment.The Supreme Court adverted to the substantive provisions under the IPC, MCOC Act and also the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and noted that while the law provides for setting-off of jail term served during investigation and trial against the main sentence, the same is not true for default sentences..“The idea is thus clear, that default sentence is not to be merged with or allowed to run concurrently with a substantive sentence. Thus, the sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine would be in excess of or in addition to the substantive sentence to which an offender may have been sentenced or to which he may be liable under commutation of a sentence.”.The judgment also noted that a discretion is granted to the Courts to allow for multiple substantive terms to run either consecutively or concurrently but the same discretion is not spoken about in any law as regards default sentences..“Is such non specification accidental or is there any idea behind not allowing concurrent running of default sentences?”.The Court placed reliance on the precedents cited by the counsel for the State of Maharashtra as well as the language used in Section 64 of the IPC which provides for default sentences to run in excess of a substantive sentence. The judgment states,.“The rigour of the provisions is such that even if a person gets the benefit of commutation of a sentence, the sentence in default of payment of fine shall be in excess or in addition.”.The Court consequently ruled that default sentences, inter se, cannot be directed to run concurrently. However, keeping in mind the financial condition of the appellant, the Court reduced the quantum of default sentence to be served by the appellant to three years and four months..Read Judgment:
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that default sentences, the sentences awarded in lieu of non-payment of fine, cannot run concurrently inter se..The judgement which was delivered by a Bench of Justices UU Lalit and AM Sapre gives the rationale behind the same, stating,.“if the default sentences awarded in respect of imposition of fine in connection with two or more offences are to be clubbed or directed to run concurrently, there would not be any occasion for the persons so sentenced to deposit the fine in respect of the second or further offences. It would effectively mean imposition of one single or combined sentence of fine.”.It was further stated by the Court that an exercise of clubbing default sentences with the statutory sentence and directing their concurrent operation would effectively nullify the deterrent effect of the imposition of a fine..“Such an exercise would render the very idea of imposition of fine with a deterrent stipulation while awarding sentence in default of payment of fine to be meaningless..… If imposition of fine and prescription of mandatory minimum is designed to achieve a specific purpose, the very objective will get defeated if the default sentences were directed to run concurrently.”.The Court delivered this judgment in a Special Leave Petition in Sharad Hiru Kolambe vs the State of Maharashtra wherein the petitioner had challenged the Bombay High Court judgment that affirmed his conviction under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act). However, the specific question before the Supreme Court was regarding the default sentence..Factual Matrix.The appellant was arrested in 2001 and he was not released during the trial and pendency of the appeal and had effectively completed a jail term of fourteen years in August 2015. The appellant was directed to be released by the Government of Maharashtra upon completion of a term of 14 years. However, he is now serving a default sentence for non-payment of fine imposed on him..As regards the financial condition of the appellant’s family, the Probation Officer, District Women and Child Welfare Department, Raigad, Alibaug submitted a report which found that the appellant’s family was in a state of starvation..Submissions made before the Supreme Court.Senior Counsel Colin Gonsalves appearing for the appellant submitted that the cumulative fine imposed on the appellant under all the provisions he was found guilty under, added to over Rs. 15 lakh and considering the financial state of his family, it was clear that the appellant was not in a position to pay this fine..Further, it was also submitted by Gonsalves that while the cumulative jail term for default of payment of fine comes up to 10 years, the lower Court ordered that all the sentences run concurrently inter se and by that rationale, even the default sentences should run concurrently and therefore, should be considered to be three years..The Counsel for the State of Maharashtra, Nishant Katneshwarkar, submitted that default sentences cannot run concurrently and placed reliance upon Supreme Court and Madras High Court judgments to buttress his argument..Katneshwarkar, however, also submitted that the quantum of the default sentence could be reduced given the financial condition of the appellant..The Judgment.The Supreme Court adverted to the substantive provisions under the IPC, MCOC Act and also the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and noted that while the law provides for setting-off of jail term served during investigation and trial against the main sentence, the same is not true for default sentences..“The idea is thus clear, that default sentence is not to be merged with or allowed to run concurrently with a substantive sentence. Thus, the sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine would be in excess of or in addition to the substantive sentence to which an offender may have been sentenced or to which he may be liable under commutation of a sentence.”.The judgment also noted that a discretion is granted to the Courts to allow for multiple substantive terms to run either consecutively or concurrently but the same discretion is not spoken about in any law as regards default sentences..“Is such non specification accidental or is there any idea behind not allowing concurrent running of default sentences?”.The Court placed reliance on the precedents cited by the counsel for the State of Maharashtra as well as the language used in Section 64 of the IPC which provides for default sentences to run in excess of a substantive sentence. The judgment states,.“The rigour of the provisions is such that even if a person gets the benefit of commutation of a sentence, the sentence in default of payment of fine shall be in excess or in addition.”.The Court consequently ruled that default sentences, inter se, cannot be directed to run concurrently. However, keeping in mind the financial condition of the appellant, the Court reduced the quantum of default sentence to be served by the appellant to three years and four months..Read Judgment:
