CRPC ASSIGNMENT SEM 7TH

TOPIC : Imprisonment in Default of Fine , While discussing sec 30 or CrPC

and sec(s) 65 and 67 of IPC .

Definitions of all 3 above mentioned sections :

A . Section 30 of CrPC :
Sentences of imprisonment in default of fine.
1.The Court of a Magistrate may award such term of imprisonment in
default of payment of fine as is authorised by law: Provided that the
term-
(a) is not in excess of the powers of the Magistrate under section 29;
(b) shall not, where imprisonment has been awarded as part of the
substantive sentence, exceed one- fourth of the term of imprisonment
which the Magistrate is competent to inflict as punishment for the offence
otherwise than as imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.
2.The imprisonment awarded under this section may be in addition to a
substantive sentence of imprisonment for the maximum term awardable
by the Magistrate under section 29.

B. Section 65 of IPC :

Limit to imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when imprisonment and

fine awardable.—The term for which the Court directs the offender to be
imprisoned in default of payment of a fine shall not exceed one-fourth of
the term of imprisonment which is the maximum fixed for the offence, if
the offence be punishable with imprisonment as well as fine.

C. Section 67 of IPC :

Imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when offence punishable with fine

only.—If the offence be punishable with fine only, 1[the imprisonment
which the Court imposes in default of payment of the fine shall be
simple, and] the term for which the Court directs the offender to be
imprisoned, in default of payment of fine, shall not exceed the following
scale, that is to say, for any term not exceeding two months when the
amount of the fine shall not exceed fifty rupees, and for any term not
exceeding four months when the amount shall not exceed one hundred
rupees, and for any term not exceeding six months in any other case.
Explanation :

Section 65 acts as a safeguard to the accused in case of imprisonment

in default of fine. It states that in case of a default to pay off the fine, a
person may be sentenced to imprisonment, which cannot be more than
one-fourth of the maximum term of imprisonment provided for the major
offence for which he is being punished already. Sentence for default of
fine if exceeds the maximum sentence provided for that particular
substantive offence will be declared illegal. Moreover, if a person has
been convicted for more than one offence then the quantum of one-
fourth sentence has to be measured in relation to the punishment fixed
for all offences.
Section 67 of the IPC actually deals with those offences which are only
provided for fine as a punishment. It states the limit on the term of
imprisonment to be awarded in case of default of fine. If the fine does
not exceed `50 then the imprisonment can be of 2 months at maximum,
if the fine does not exceed `100 rupees then the maximum sentence can
be of 4 months, and of the fine exceeds `100 rupees then the
imprisonment cannot be more than 6 months. Moreover, the application
of this section goes beyond the IPC to cover the offences under special
and local laws too. This position was cleared by the Orissa High Court in
the case of Kishanlal Sindhi v. Executive Officer, Notified Area Council,
Padampur.

The sections which are discussed and mentioned above actually deal
with the powers of the courts of session judge or the High Court judge to
levy fine and then provide for an imprisonment in default of fine. But the
section 30 of the CrPC deals with the powers of the magistrate in
regards to awarding fine and sentencing imprisonment in case of default
of its payment. The provision is divided into 3 major parts. First part
states that the limits on the powers of the magistrate, which are derived
from the section 29 of the CrPC. This provision provides for the
maximum level of imprisonment, and fine that magistrates of different
classes can award. Section 30 checks that a magistrate does not
surpass those powers to award imprisonment to the accused. Then the
section once again in its accused friendly manner reiterates section 65 of
the Indian Penal Code, saying that the maximum level of imprisonment
in case of default of fine cannot be more than ¼ of the substantive
sentence. Then it once again tries to differentiate between the
substantive sentence and fine default sentence and lays down that these
cannot run concurrently. Imprisonment may be awarded even when the
statue under which the offence is committed only provides for fine and
not imprisonment. This position was cleared by the Supreme Court in
Bashiruddin Ashraf v. State of Bihar. The major contention that arises
with regards to section 30 of the CrPC is in relation with the powers of
the magistrate. Section 65 provides that the default imprisonment cannot
be more than one-fourth of the maximum sentence provided for that
offence. Means if an offence provides for a sentence of two years then
default sentence in that case would be six months. But that does not
apply to the magistrate. And here is where section 30 CrPC differs from
section 65 of IPC. The powers of the magistrate are already limited by
the section 30. Magistrate’s power of sentencing is governed by section
29 of CrPC. Magistrate does not always possess the powers of awarding
the maximum sentence, and thus the default sentence i.e. one-fourth of
the substantive sentence awarded will also be less, as compared to the
default sentence given by a session court. Because a session court has
the power to impose the maximum sentence but a magistrate does not.
The quantum of one-fourth is case of section 65 has to be measured
from the maximum punishment prescribed in the section, while in case of
s 30 it has to be measured from the powers of the magistrate conferred
under s 29 of CrPC. A magistrate therefore cannot exceed his powers
under s 29 to award imprisonment by resorting to s 65 IPC. This
harmonious construction to these two sections was given by the
Supreme Court in the case of Chhajulal v. State of Rajasthan.