“Justice Is Not An Artificial Virtue”: Bombay HC Directs Release Of Man Who Remained In Jail Even After Sentence Completion Due To His Inability To Pay Fine
The Bombay High Court directed the release of a man who was in jail even after completion of sentence, merely because his inability to pay the fine amount.
The Court remarked that along with the justice, magnanimity is one of the “twin peaks” of moral virtue and “Justice is not an artificial virtue”.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande observed, “We must keep in mind that alongwith the justice, magnanimity is one of the “twin peaks” of moral virtue and “Justice is not an artificial virtue”, but it necessarily embrace magnanimity and in exercise of inherent jurisdiction vested in us, to prevent the abuse of process of law, in favour of the Petitioner, who merely because of his inability to pay the huge amount of fine continue to be incarcerated, we deem it appropriate to direct his release by reducing the sentence of imprisonment, in default to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him till the date of passing of the order.”
Advocates Atharva Dandekar and Hitendra Parab appeared for the petitioner while APP Ashvini Takalkar appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner was convicted in 14 criminal cases under Sections 454, 457, 428, 511, 380 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in the year 2019. The conviction in each of the case was based on the admission of guilt recorded by the Magistrate and on being found guilty of having committed the offence with which he was charged, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years, sentence in each criminal case being directed to run concurrently with that in other criminal cases.
In addition, a fine was imposed on the petitioner in 14 cases and he was directed to deposit a fine of Rs. 5,000/- on being convicted under Section 454 of the IPC, Rs. 10,000/- for conviction under Section 457 of the IPC and Rs.5,000/- for being convicted under Section 380, with the default sentences being stipulated in the respective judgments. Hence, the total fine imposed upon him in all the cases was Rs. 2,65,000/-. He approached the High Court with a contention that he served his substantive sentence but since he was not able to afford the amount of fine due to poverty, he was facing the prospect of being incarcerated for further period of 9 years, and undergo imprisonment in default of fine. He sought reduction of sentence by restricting it to the imprisonment period already undergone and for his release forthwith.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in addition, prescribe that the sentence of imprisonment awarded in default of fine may be in addition to a substantive sentence of imprisonment, for the maximum term which is awardable by the Magistrate under Section 29 of the Code.”
The Court added that since it is not permissible to direct the concurrent running of the default sentences, and since the fine imposed on recording conviction under Section 457 i.e. Rs. 10,000/- is excessive, it is appropriate to reduce the same to Rs. 5,000/-.
“In addition, taking into consideration the financial position of the Petitioner as he is unable to deposit the fine, we find that the imposition of default sentences of 3 months on each count is on higher scale and we deem it appropriate, to direct that by considering his detention in prison above May 2020 should be considered as default sentence undergone, in lieu of the fine imposed in all the 14 cases, on all three counts i.e. Section 454, 457 and 380 of the IPC”, it said.
The Court clarified that the incarceration suffered by the petitioner on undergoing substantive sentences imposed on him in 14 cases from May 2020, till date, shall be considered to be the default sentence undergone by him for not paying the fine.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the release of the petitioner from jail forthwith.
Cause Title- Sikander Govind Kale v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:27383-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Atharva Dandekar, Hitendra Parab, and Padmini Ainapure.
Respondents: APP Ashvini Takalkar
