Supreme Court: Convicts Sentenced To Only Fine Also Entitled To Benefit Of Probation Of Offender Act

 In light of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, the expression 'release' has to be read accordingly. In this context, we are of the opinion that 'release' cannot mean release only from custody. It has to be read as releasing from the obligation to serve sentence of payment of fine. This view is further strengthened by the meaning of the word 'release' as contained in Advanced Law Lexicon2. It is defined, inter-alia, as 'to set at liberty'. Therefore, 'release' as contained in Section 4 of 1958 Act should be read as to set the offender at liberty from receiving sentence, even of fine only. {Para 26}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1893 of 2026

Decided On: 10.04.2026

Milind and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.K. Maheshwari and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

Author: J.K. Maheshwari, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 355, MANU/SC/0351/2026.

Print Page

Basic concepts: What is the difference between penalty and fine?

 Under Indian law, fines and penalties are distinct legal concepts with several key differences in their application, authority, and legal procedures.

Authority and Imposition

Fine is imposed exclusively by courts of law after completion of trial proceedings. A fine represents a monetary punishment ordered by a judge following conviction for a criminal offense.

Penalty, conversely, is imposed directly by appropriate regulatory authorities or administrative bodies without requiring court proceedings. Regulatory agencies can impose penalties immediately upon discovering non-compliance with statutory provisions.

Legal Process Required

Print Page

LLM Notes: Principal Types of Sentences under Special Laws in India

 Overview

Special laws in India refer to statutes enacted to address specific types of offences or situations not fully covered by the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These laws often prescribe their own sentencing frameworks, which may differ from the general punishments under the IPC. The principal types of sentences under special laws include:

1. Statutory Minimum Sentences

• Many special laws prescribe mandatory minimum sentences for certain offences. Courts cannot impose a sentence less than the minimum prescribed by the statute, even by invoking constitutional powers (such as Article 142).

Print Page

LLM Notes: Concept of Fine under Indian Penal Law: An Overview

 Fine, as a form of punishment under Indian Penal Law, is a pecuniary penalty imposed by the court upon conviction of an offender. It is one of the recognized punishments under Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alongside death, imprisonment for life, imprisonment (rigorous or simple), and forfeiture of property.

Nature and Purpose

The imposition of fine under Indian criminal law serves multiple objectives. Primarily, it acts as a deterrent to discourage the offender from repeating the offence. Additionally, fines can serve a compensatory function, providing monetary relief either to the victim or to the state. The fine thus carries both punitive and compensatory dimensions, aiming not only at punishing the offender but also providing financial restitution to victims or contributing to state revenue.

Print Page

LLM Notes: Punishments Under Indian Penal Law: A Comprehensive Analysis of Types and Landmark Judgments

 The Indian Penal Code (IPC) establishes a structured framework of punishments aimed at achieving various objectives of criminal justice, including deterrence, retribution, and reformation. This article examines the different types of punishments prescribed under Indian penal law and analyzes landmark judgments that have shaped their interpretation and application.

Types of Punishments Under Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code

Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code explicitly enumerates five primary forms of punishment that courts may impose on convicted offenders.

1. Death Penalty

The most severe punishment, reserved for the "rarest of rare" cases as established by judicial precedents.

2. Imprisonment for Life

A sentence that requires the offender to remain imprisoned for the natural duration of their life, subject to provisions for remission.

Print Page

Does the court impose the condition of the deposit of fine for hearing criminal revision by a convict in a cheque dishonour case?

Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the

case as also the law applicable, we are clearly of the view that

the High Court could not have made the deposit of fine amount a

condition precedent for the purpose of hearing the revision

petition. As to what order is to be passed ultimately in the

revision petition is a matter entirely different and that would

depend on the examination of the matter in terms of the

requirements of revisional jurisdiction but, in any case,

depositing of fine amount could not have been made a condition

precedent for the purpose of even hearing of the revision petition

so filed by the appellant.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).747 OF 2021

R KALAI SELVI  Vs  BHEEMAPPA

Dated: AUGUST 04, 2021.

Print Page

Kerala HC: Passport Authorities have no power to impose penalties or fine for violation of passport Act

1) The poignant question raised is whether an authority under the Passports Act, 1967, has any power to impose penalty/fine invoking the powers under Section 12 of the Act 1967. It is submitted by the petitioners that as per relevant provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, a passport authority

defined under Section 2(c) of the Act has only delegated powers to issue

passport under Section 5(2)(a) or reject an incomplete passport

application under Section 5(2)(c) or refuse a passport under Section 6(2)

or restrict the validity under Section 7(b) or impound/revoke a passport

under Section 10(3) of the said Act, and not to impose any penalty.

2) Taking into account the rival submissions made across the Bar,

our endeavour is to find out the legal purport of Section 12 of the Act

1967 extracted above. On a reading of Section 12(1), it is clear that

offences and penalties are prescribed for contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or for the reasons enumerated thereunder, which shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term prescribed thereunder or with fine prescribed thereunder or with both. Therefore, it is evident from the

provisions that in the event of any person found guilty, he is liable to be

punished with an imprisonment for a term prescribed thereunder or in

the alternative to impose fine prescribed thereunder or with both.

Therefore, on a deeper analysis of the provision, it is amply clear that the

passport issuing authority or any of the authorities under the Act, 1967

are given powers under the Passports Act, 1967 or Rules framed

thereunder, to initiate prosecution for the contravention of the provisions

of the Passports Act, 1967. A reading of the provision further shows

that, the power to punish with imprisonment is conferred only to the

Magistrates as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Fine as

an alternative to imprisonment on finding guilty, can only be imposed by

the competent Magistrate who adjudicates the issue on the basis of any

complaint filed by the passport authority. Therefore, it is unequivocal that the passport authority is not vested with

any powers under Section 12 to impose any fine on any person who

commits any offence in contemplation of Section 12 of the Act 1967.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

&

 MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

WP(C).No.7945 OF 2018(S)

 CITIZENS LEGAL RIGHT ASSOCIATION Vs  UNION OF INDIA

Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2020

S.Manikumar, CJ.

Print Page

Whether accused is absolved of making payment of fine if he has undergone the sentence of default imprisonment?

1) Section 70 of IPC runs as follows :

"The fine, or any part thereof which remains unpaid, may be levied at any time within six years after the passing of the sentence, and if, under the sentence, the offender be liable to imprisonment for a longer period than six years, then at any time previous to the expiration of that period; and the death of the offender does not discharge from the liability any property which would, after his death, be legally liable for his debts."

2) The authors of the Indian Penal Code observe in respect of imprisonment in default of payment of fine :

"We do not mean that this imprisonment shall be taken in full satisfaction of the fine. We cannot consent to permit the offender to choose whether he will suffer in his person or in his property. To adopt such a course would be to grant exemption from the punishment of fine to those very persons on whom it is peculiarly desirable that the punishment of fine should be inflicted, to those very persons who dislike that punishment most, and whom the apprehension of that punishment would be most likely to restrain. We therefore propose that the imprisonment which an offender has undergone shall not release him from the pecuniary obligation under which he lies. His person will, indeed, cease to be answerable for the fine; but his property will for a time continue to be so. 

3) It is thus clear that section 70 meant, to lay down what appears to us to be very clear provision for recovery of the claims of the state against offenders against public justice, in respect of fine even when the accused underwent sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine; and it is the duty of the Courts to exercise the powers under section 70.

4) Having regard to the provisions of section 70 of the Indian Penal Code, it is clear that an accused cannot escape his liability of payment of fine by undergoing the default sentence and make a mockery of the sentence of fine, which is many times heavy, running into thousands of rupees or nullify the order with regard to the expenses and compensation.

36. We, therefore, upon perusal of the report of the Deputy Registrar and after hearing the Public Prosecutor and in exercise of the powers of this Court under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, lay down that, as a matter of practice, before returning the writs for recovery of the fine, the subordinate Courts should apply their minds to the provisions of section 421 of the new Criminal Procedure Code and decide whether any warrant is to be issued or whether any other order is to be passed in accordance with section 421, in the light of the observations made herein above.

37. The attention of all the Courts, subordinate to this Court is, therefore, invited to the provisions contained in section 70 of the Indian Penal Code, which must be read along with section 421 of the new Criminal Procedure Code and also the rules framed by the Government under section 386 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, with regard to the manner in which the execution is to be levied, which are continued until modified or superseded under section 484 (2) of the new Criminal Procedure Code.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Cri. Appeal No. 1264 of 1973

Decided On: 28.02.1977

 In Re: Report By Deputy Registrar High Court, Appellate Side Seeking Directions

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.N. Vaidya and P.B. Sawant, JJ.

Citation: MANU/MH/0380/1977

Print Page

When can Magistrate impose conditions while ordering the suspension of sentence of a convict?

we are of the view that once a person is convicted and sentenced section 389 would be applicable, the Judge has to pass an order of bail mandatorily, but, this order in case of fine could be subject to conditions. Therefore, the proper course in this case would have been the Magistrate passing the order for bail subject to payment of fine in full or in part as he would deem fit in the circumstances of the case by giving reasons.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

(Before Bilal Nazki and A.R. Joshi, JJ.)

Smt. Vandana Nursinh Kelkar v.  The State of Maharashtra

Criminal Writ Petition No. 92 of 2009

Decided on March 25, 2009

Citation: 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 470

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki, J.) :-

Print Page

What are rights of legal heirs of deceased convicted accused of dishonour of cheque?

The legal heirs, in such a case, are neither liable to pay the fine or to undergo imprisonment. However, they have a right to challenge the conviction of their predecessor only for the purpose that he was not guilty of any offence. We have, therefore, allowed the application filed by the legal heirs to prosecute this appeal.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 2012

Decided On: 19.09.2019

M. Abbas Haji  Vs.  T.N. Channakeshava

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.

Citation: (2019) 9 SCC 606

Print Page

Supreme Court: Governing principle for determining amount of fine to be imposed

 Insofar as the nature and extent the power to impose fine is concerned, Section 63 of the Indian Penal Code provides some guidelines and states that wherever no sum is expressed to which a fine could extend, the amount should not be excessive. It follows that if the law in question or the concerned provision stipulates the quantum or minimum amount of fine, the Courts must be guided by such specification. In Shantilal (supra) this Court considered the nature of imposition of fine and what attending circumstances ought to be taken into account by the Court while directing imprisonment for nonpayment of fine. Para 31 of the said decision is as under;

31. The next submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, however, has substance. The term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine is not a sentence. It is a penalty which a person incurs on account of non-payment of fine. The sentence is something which an offender must undergo unless it is set aside or remitted in part or in whole either in appeal or in revision or in other appropriate judicial proceedings or "otherwise". A term of imprisonment ordered in default of payment of fine stands on a different footing. A person is required to undergo imprisonment either because he is unable to pay the amount of fine or refuses to pay such amount. He, therefore, can always avoid to undergo imprisonment in default of payment of fine by paying such amount. It is, therefore, not only the power, but the duty of the court to keep in view the nature of offence, circumstances under which it was committed, the position of the offender and other relevant considerations before ordering the offender to suffer imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2018 

Decided On: 20.09.2018

 Sharad Hiru Kolambe Vs.  State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Manohar Sapre and U.U. Lalit, JJ.

Citation:AIR 2018 SC 4595,(2018)18 SCC 718.

Print Page

Whether court can grant imprisonment on default of payment of compensation in cheque bounce case?

Section 431 clearly provides that an order of compensation under Section 357(3) will be recoverable in the same way as if it were a fine. Section 421 further provides the mode of recovery of a fine and the section clearly provides that a person can be imprisoned for non-payment of fine. Therefore, going by the provisions of the code, the intention of the legislature is clearly to ensure that mode of recovery of a fine and compensation is on the same footing. In light of the aforesaid reasoning, the contention of the accused that there can be no sentence of imprisonment for default in payment of compensation under Section 357(3) should fail.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1052 of 2010 

Decided On: 11.05.2010

 K.A. Abbas H.S.A. and Ors. Vs.  Sabu Joseph and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and H.L. Dattu, JJ.

Print Page

Whether court can direct accused to deposit fine amount while suspending sentence against him?

We, thus, are of the view that Section 357 Code of Criminal Procedure has nothing to do with suspension of sentence awarded by the trial court and the sentence of fine imposed on the Accused is in no way affected by Section 357(2) Code of Criminal Procedure The present is not a case where trial court has directed payment of any compensation to anyone out of fine imposed. There is no direction for payment of compensation in the order of the trial court nor present case is covered by the circumstances mentioned in Sub-clauses (a) to (d) of Section 357(1) Code of Criminal Procedure Present is also not a case of Section 357(3) Code of Criminal Procedure Hence, there is no question of applicability of Section 357(2) Code of Criminal Procedure The heading of Section 357 Code of Criminal Procedure throws considerable light in finding the object and purpose of the Section. Section 357 Code of Criminal Procedure is only attracted when Court orders for payment of compensation. Section 357 is not attracted in any other case.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that Section 357(2) Code of Criminal Procedure was not attracted in the present case since there was no direction of payment of any compensation out of the fine imposed by the trial court as part of sentence. Section 357 Code of Criminal Procedure (2) comes into play only where any order of payment of compensation utilising the fine imposed as sentence Under Section 357(1) Code of Criminal Procedure or compensation as directed Under Section 357(3) Code of Criminal Procedure is made. Present being neither a case of Section 357(1) Code of Criminal Procedure nor Section 357(3), Sub-section (2) of Section 357 Code of Criminal Procedure is clearly not applicable and the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant are without any substance. We, thus, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the High Court where the High Court has directed the Appellant to deposit the fine awarded by the trial court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1994 of 2018)

Decided On: 23.03.2018

Satyendra Kumar Mehra Vs. The State of Jharkhand

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.

Citation:(2018) 15 SCC 139

Print Page

Whether Default Sentences, Inter Se, Can Be Directed To Run Concurrently?

 The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the decisions cited supra makes it crystal clear that
imposition of the term of imprisonment in default of payment
of fine is not a sentence and it is a penalty which a person
incurs on account of non-payment of fine. It is also made clear
that if such default sentence is imposed, undoubtedly, an
offender must undergo unless it is modified or varied in part or
whole in the judicial proceedings. Therefore, there is no power
for the Court to order the default sentences to run concurrently.
The Hon’ble Apex Court also made it clear that when such a
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.”
The conclusion regarding concurrent running of default sentence was
as under:
“18. It is relevant to state that there are provisions under
the code, as pointed out earlier, to order the substantive
sentences to run concurrently and the legislature specifically
excluded such power to the Court in respect of ordering the
default sentences to run concurrently. The Court cannot add or
substitute any additional words to any particular provision of
the Code. It is not for the Court to take up the work of
legislation and the Court can only apply the provision contained
under the Code as it is. It is well-settled in a catena of decisions
that the term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine
cannot be deemed to be a sentence, but a penalty which is
incurred on account of non-payment of fine.”
15. In the circumstances, we reject the submission regarding concurrent
running of default sentences, as in our considered view default sentences,
inter se, cannot be directed to run concurrently. 
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1209 OF 2018

(Diary No.33034 of 2017)

Sharad Hiru Kolambe Vs State of Maharashtra 

Dated:September 20, 2018
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Citation:AIR 2018 SC 4595,(2018)18 SCC 718

Print Page

When it is not permissible for court to substitute fine in place of imprisonment?

 In this context and factual background, two points arise for consideration, viz.:

(i) Whether the High Court was permitted, in law, to do away with the punishment of imprisonment altogether and substitutes the same with fine alone?

(ii) Whether the circumstances pleaded by the Respondent were so mitigating that punishment of fine alone could be justified?

14. Coming to the first question, as can be seen from the language of Sections 307, 328 and 392 of Indian Penal Code, all these Sections provide for imprisonment 'and' fine. In fact, after specifying particular term of imprisonment, all these Sections use the words 'and shall also be liable to fine'. This expression came up for consideration in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0453/1999 : (1999) 7 SCC 409 and the Court explained that in such circumstances, it is imperative to impose both the sentences i.e. imprisonment as well as fine. Thus, there has to be punishment of imprisonment in respect of these offences, and in addition, the convict is also liable to pay fine. Therefore, awarding the punishment of imprisonment is a must and there cannot be a situation where no imprisonment is imposed at all. The High Court was, therefore, clearly wrong in not inflicting a sentence of imprisonment, by modifying the sentence awarded by the trial court and obliterating the sentence of imprisonment altogether. Thus, the very approach of the High Court in substituting the sentence by fine alone is impermissible in law.

15. Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enlists the powers of the appellate court while hearing the appeals from the trial court. In an appeal from conviction, if the conviction is maintained, the appellate court has the power to alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence (though it cannot enhance the same). However, such a power has to be exercised in terms of the provisions of Indian Penal Code etc. for which the Accused has been convicted. Power to alter the sentence would not extend to exercising the powers contrary to law. It clearly follows that the High Court committed a legal error in doing away with the sentence of imprisonment altogether.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 667 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8983 of 2012

Decided On: 10.04.2017

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nirmala Devi

Print Page

Whether court can direct payment of compensation where fine is already part of sentence?

 Section 357 (3)          Cr.P.C. provides that           when a court

imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the

Court may, when passing judgment                   order the accused

person to pay, by way of compensation such amount as

may be specified in the order to the person who has

suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which

the accused person has been so sentenced. It is clear from

sub Section (3) of Section 357 Cr.P.C., that the court

can award compensation                 under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C.

only if fine does not form part of the sentence.                 If fine

forms part of the sentence,                  the Court can award

compensation only under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C. and not

under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C.                The compensation under

                          

Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C can be            awarded only out of the

fine amount and hence, the said compensation cannot

exceed the fine amount. When there is no sentence of fine,

no direction          for compensation under Section 357 (1)

Cr.P.C can be issued. If the Court imposes a sentence other

than fine, the Court can award compensation under Section

357 (3) Cr.P.C., if the Court deems it necessary.


      10.     The Apex Court in Sivasuriyan v. Thangavelu

[(2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 532] considered the question as to

whether the Court can direct payment of compensation in

exercise of power under sub-section (3) of Section 357 in a

case where fine already forms part of a sentence and held

that the power under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. can be

exercised only when Court imposes sentence of which fine

does not form a part.


      11.        In the present case, the only sentence awarded

by the appellate court was fine. Since sentence of fine was

awarded by the appellate court, the order of the appellate

court awarding           compensation    under Section 357 (3)

                      
Cr.P.C is not legal and correct and consequently, the same

cannot be sustained.
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                         PRESENT:

       MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

 7TH DECEMBER 2016/

             Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 507 of 2011 

    KOLATTERI PURUSHOTHAMAN,
   Vs
         P.B.MOHAN KUMAR,

Print Page

Whether appellate court can impose more fine than fine which can be imposed by magistrate?

Coming to the next question of imposition of
fine to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh)
Section 28 of Cr.P.C. provides for imposition of sentences
by High Courts and Sessions Judges, as authorised by law
Section 29 prescribes that a Magistrate of the First Class
may, interalia, impose fine not exceeding Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees ten thousand) along with sentence of
imprisonment for an term not exceeding three years or
both. The Appellate Authority, as prescribed under 386(a)
of Cr.P.C. may impose sentence, according to law. Thus,
the Appellate Authority exercises the same jurisdiction
while examining a case for an offence punishable under
Section 365 IPC, which is triable by a Magistrate, First
Class, who does not have power to impose fine exceeding 
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). Accordingly,
imposition of fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) is
without jurisdiction and as such it needs modification by
way of reducing it to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand).
35. Resultantly, I modify and reduce the fine
amount from Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) to

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), 

HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK

Kashikant Jha Vs. State of Sikkim

(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

S.B. : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. K. AGNIHOTRI, JUDGE

Crl.Rev.P.No.01 of 2015

Dated:20th June 2016.
Citation:2016 CRLJ 4003Sikkim

Print Page

Whether court has discretion to impose fine less than minimum fine prescribed under Statute?

In our considered view, the clause “shall also be liable to fine”, in
the context of Indian Penal Code may be capable of being treated as
directory and thus conferring on the court a discretion to impose
sentence of fine also in addition to imprisonment although such
discretion stands somewhat impaired as per the view taken by this Court
in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar (supra). But clearly no
minimum fine is prescribed for the offences under the IPC nor that Act
was enacted with the special purpose of preventing economic offences as
was the case in Chern Taong Shang (supra). The object of creating
offence and penalty under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 is
clearly to create deterrence against violation of provisions of the Act
which are beneficial for the employees. Non-payment of contributions is
an economic offence and therefore the Legislature has not only fixed a
minimum term of imprisonment but also a fixed amount of fine of five
thousand rupees under Section 85(a)(i)(b) of the Act. There is no
discretion of awarding less than the specified fee, under the main
provision. It is only the proviso which is in the nature of an exception
whereunder the court is vested with discretion limited to imposition of
imprisonment for a lesser term. Conspicuously, no words are found in

the proviso for imposing a lesser fine than that of five thousand rupees.
In such a situation the intention of the Legislature is clear and brooks no
interpretation. The law is well settled that when the wordings of the
Stature are clear, no interpretation is required unless there is a
requirement of saving the provisions from vice of unconstitutionality or
absurdity. Neither of the twin situations is attracted herein.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1065-1066 OF 2005

Employees State Insurance Corporation  Vs A.K. Abdul Samad & Anr.
Dated;March 10, 2016.

Print Page

CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM IMPOSES FINE ON HOTEL FOR CHARGING A CUSTOMER OVER AND ABOVE MRP

The apex consumer forum has imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 1.56 lakh on a Gujarat-based hotel for charging customers Rs 5.5 above the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of a soft drink.

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) imposed the cost reiterating earlier judicial rulings barring hotels and eateries from charging above the MRP.

The ruling came on a petition filed by a Bharuch-based hotel Nyay Mandir, which challenged the Gujarat State Commission's order to pay Rs 6,000 as compensation to complainant Ishwar Lal Jinabhai Desai, who had approached the forum for having been charged Rs 18 for beverage 'Miranda', despite its MRP being only Rs 12.50.

Print Page

Whether court can impose fine which is twice the amount of cheque in case of dishonour of cheque?

Coming then to the question whether the additional
amount which the High Court has directed the appellant to
pay could be levied in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment,
we must keep two significant aspects in view. First and
foremost is the fact that the power to levy fine is
circumscribed under the statute to twice the cheque amount.
Even in a case where the Court may be taking a lenient view
in favour of the accused by not sending him to prison, it
cannot impose a fine more than twice the cheque amount.
That statutory limit is inviolable and must be respected. The
High Court has, in the case at hand, obviously overlooked the
statutory limitation on its power to levy a fine. It appears to
have proceeded on the basis as though payment of
compensation under Section 357 of CrPC is different from the
power to levy fine under Section 138, which assumption is
not correct.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1651 OF 2013

Somnath Sarkar Vs  Utpal Basu Mallick & Anr.

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.
Citation; 2013(4) crimes 606 SC

Print Page