Section 63 in The Indian Penal Code
- 6 Amount of fine.—Where no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend, the amount of fine to which the offender is liable is unlimited, but shall not be excessive.
Where no amount is specified for which a fine may be imposed, the amount of fine to which the offender is responsible is limitless but not exorbitant. Where there is no indication of a maximum to which a fine can be charged, the fine can be charged indefinitely but not excessively.
Is a word that has a lot of different meanings depending on
On November 9, 2004, Mohd. Akram vs. State Of Rajasthan And Ors.
AIR 2005 Raj 142, RLW 2005 (2) Raj 1211, 2005 (1) WLC 655 are the equivalent citations.
Bench – K Rathore
I also examined the petitioner’s assertions that the petitioner cannot be deemed disqualified until and until the charges are formulated. I am of the considered view that the respondents are free to launch the investigation concurrently, even if they have filed a FIR against the petitioner for the same misbehaviour and shameful conduct. The respondents laid forth the allegations against the petitioner, and the petitioner was required to explain himself. The Judicial Officer performed the investigation. The petitioner was represented by counsel, however he eventually opted not to appear and participate in the investigation to defend his position. As a result, the respondents have no choice but to issue a disqualification decision under Section 63 I (d) and, in light of Section 64 provisions, prevent the petitioner from running for re-election for another six years. Given the foregoing findings, I find the writ petition to be devoid of substance. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs because it fails.
Ajikumar vs District Collector on 20 February, 2020
According to the above-mentioned legal principle and the interpretation of the maxim casus omissus by legal authorities, it is not for the courts to substitute words and determine the meaning of a legal provision. It is also crucial to remember that no terms or expressions used in any legislation may be deemed to be repetitive or unnecessary if the wording used is clear enough to grasp the legislature’s objective. The meaning intended by the legislator may be gleaned from the whole legislation, and additional addition or substitution of terms must be avoided. We believe that simply because the provisions of section 68 of the Abkari Act may have been phrased differently would not change the meaning supplied specifically under section 68 of the Abkari Act, which is plain and unambiguous in our judgement. Taking into account the aforementioned factors, we have no hesitation in concluding that the learned Single Judge was correct in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants, and there are no established reasons for us to interfere with the judgement in an intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act. As a result of the above debate, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sharad Hiru Kolambe vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 September, 2018
As a result, while maintaining the quantum of fine, the aggregate default sentence in respect of four counts of offences punishable under the IPC cumulatively at Rs.4000/- shall be four months; and in respect of three counts of offences punishable under the MCOC Act shall be Rs.15 lakhs cumulatively with an aggregate default sentence of three years. Even if no fine is paid by the appellant, the entire default sentence for the appellant would thus be three years and four months, three years of which the appellant has already served.
Raja @ Rajendra vs State on 15 January, 2019
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
In light of the aforementioned principles of the law put forth by Hon’ble the Apex Court, it appears that even in situations involving the N.D.P.S. Act, the punishment issued in absence of payment of fine is not equivalent to the main term. It is a penalty imposed on a person for failing to pay a fine. If a sentence is imposed on an offender, he must serve it until it is set aside or remitted in part or in whole through an appeal, revision, or other proper legal processes. As a result, the imprisonment imposed for failure to pay a fine is on a distinct basis When such a default sentence is issued, a person is obliged to serve time in jail, either because he is unable to pay the fee or because he refuses to pay the fine. As a result, it is the court’s responsibility to consider the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the offender’s financial situation, and other relevant considerations such as pecuniary circumstances before ordering the offender to serve time in prison in default of payment of a fine. The provisions of the Indian Penal Code state unequivocally that the fine shall not be severe or exorbitant.
Pokar Ram vs State on 28 January, 2020
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
As a result, it is the court’s responsibility to consider the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the offender’s financial situation, and other relevant considerations such as pecuniary circumstances before ordering the offender to serve time in prison in default of payment of a fine.
Kailash Chandra And Anr vs State on 2 June, 2020
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
It is clear and reiterated that the term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine is not a sentence. To put it clear, it is a penalty which a person incurs on account of non-payment of fine. On the other hand, if sentence is imposed, undoubtedly, an offender must undergo unless it is modified or varied in part or whole in the judicial proceedings. However, the imprisonment ordered in default of payment of fine stands on a different footing. When such default sentence is imposed, a person is required to undergo imprisonment either because he is unable to pay the amount of fine or refuses to pay such amount. Accordingly, he can always avoid to undergo imprisonment in default of payment of fine by paying such an amount. In such circumstance, we are of the view that it is the duty of the Court to keep in view the nature of offence, circumstances in which it was committed, the position of the offender and other relevant considerations such as pecuniary circumstances of the accused person as to character and magnitude of the offence before ordering the offender to suffer imprisonment in default of payment of fine. The provisions of Sections 63 to 70 of IPC make it clear that an amount of fine should not be harsh or excessive. We also reiterate that where a substantial term of imprisonment is inflicted, an excessive fine should not be imposed except in exceptional cases.