Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a fine imposed by a criminal court can be levied after six years from the date of sentence when the appellate court had suspended the execution of the sentence of fine, and whether the period of such suspension is excluded for computing limitation under Section 70 of the Indian Penal Code.
Analysis: Section 70 of the Indian Penal Code fixes a six-year period for levying an unpaid fine from the date of sentence. Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the appellate court to suspend execution of the sentence or order appealed against, and during such suspension the sentence of fine is not operative for the purpose of levy. The Court held that a party who obtains a stay of recovery cannot later rely on that very stay to contend that the fine has become time-barred. Properly construed, Section 70 requires the State to commence recovery proceedings within six years, and where levy is rendered impossible by a judicial suspension, the period of suspension does not run against the State.
Conclusion: The period during which recovery of the fine remained suspended was not to be counted for limitation under Section 70 of the Indian Penal Code, and the levy of fine was not barred.
Ratio Decidendi: Where recovery of a fine is stayed or the sentence is suspended by a competent court, the period of suspension is excluded in applying the limitation for levy of fine under Section 70 of the Indian Penal Code.