Short consecutive sentences and discretionary fine under Penal Code Section 325 were upheld as legally sustainable

Omission to specify the precise order of short consecutive sentences did not itself make the sentence illegal; the requirement was treated as material only where life imprisonment was involved, and the appellate court could have clarified the order if needed. The expression that an offender "shall also be liable to fine" was read as conferring discretion to impose a fine, not as making fine compulsory in every conviction under Section 325 of the Penal Code, while imprisonment remained mandatory. On that basis, the remand order was held unsustainable and the matter was directed back for rehearing and disposal according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether consecutive sentences were illegal because the trial court did not specify the order in which they were to run; (ii) Whether a conviction under Section 325 of the Penal Code necessarily required imposition of fine in addition to imprisonment.

Issue (i): Whether consecutive sentences were illegal because the trial court did not specify the order in which they were to run.

Analysis: The omission to state the precise order of operation of the consecutive sentences did not matter where the sentences were only for short terms of imprisonment. The requirement of specifying the order was material only in cases involving life imprisonment. In any event, the appellate court could itself have indicated the order if it considered that necessary.

Conclusion: The consecutive sentences were not illegal on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether a conviction under Section 325 of the Penal Code necessarily required imposition of fine in addition to imprisonment.

Analysis: The expression that the offender "shall also be liable to fine" denotes a liability to fine and not a compulsory sentence of fine in every case. The Court treated the provision as leaving discretion to impose fine only where appropriate, while making imprisonment obligatory.

Conclusion: Fine was not mandatory under Section 325 of the Penal Code in every case of conviction.

Final Conclusion: The remand order was unsustainable and the matter was sent back to the lower appellate court for rehearing and disposal according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imprisonment is the compulsory punishment under a penal provision, the words "shall also be liable to fine" confer discretion to impose fine and do not make fine obligatory; similarly, the omission to specify the order of short consecutive sentences does not by itself render the sentence illegal.

---