TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissed Anticipatory Bail Petition for Misrepresentation & Default Sentence Clarification</h1> <h3>S. Sathappan Versus The Inspector of Police, South Gate Police Station, Madurai</h3> S. Sathappan Versus The Inspector of Police, South Gate Police Station, Madurai - TMI Issues:1. Anticipatory bail petition filed due to misrepresentation by the complainant about the pendency of a criminal revision.2. Legal interpretation regarding the imposition of default sentence for non-payment of fine in summary trial cases.3. Finality of criminal prosecution stages and the right to file anticipatory bail.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed an anticipatory bail petition after the complainant sought a Non Bailable Warrant based on misleading information regarding the pendency of a criminal revision. The Court noted that the representation made by the petitioner was incorrect, as the criminal revision had been disposed of by a Division Bench on 06.02.2007, confirming the conviction and sentence except for the default sentence of the fine.2. The legal issue centered around the imposition of a default sentence for non-payment of fine in summary trial cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Division Bench, in its order dated 06.02.2007, emphasized that the Act itself prescribed the procedure for trial and punishment, making Section 30 of the Cr.P.C inapplicable. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Bench clarified that imprisonment in default of fine was not permissible under Section 138 of the Act, leading to the setting aside of the three months' imprisonment in default of payment of a fine of Rs. 5000.3. The Court highlighted that since the criminal prosecution had concluded all stages and reached finality, the petitioner had no right to file an anticipatory bail petition for modification. The misrepresentation regarding the pendency of the criminal revision was deemed a crucial reason for dismissing the anticipatory bail petition.4. Notably, the legal position established by the Division Bench in 2007 was revisited by the Apex Court in 2017, which held that default sentences could be imposed even for failure to pay compensation. However, the Court affirmed the finality of the Division Bench's finding in 2007, emphasizing that subsequent legal interpretations would not affect the earlier judgment.5. The petitioner's counsel requested time to settle the claim, leading to the deferral of the execution of the Non Bailable Warrant until a specified date. The Court, while acknowledging the subsequent legal developments, upheld the Division Bench's decision from 2007 as conclusive in the present case.
TaxTMI 