Default imprisonment cannot run concurrently, but its duration may be reduced without disturbing the fine.

Imprisonment in default of payment of fine is distinct from substantive imprisonment and, absent express statutory power, cannot be directed to run concurrently with other default sentences. The Court held that concurrent running would dilute the deterrent effect of fine and is not permitted under the sentencing scheme. At the same time, the quantum of default imprisonment may be moderated on relevant sentencing considerations, including the offender's financial condition, without disturbing the fine itself. Applying that principle, the Court reduced the aggregate default term while maintaining the fines and the convictions, and the appeal succeeded only to that limited extent.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether default sentences imposed for non-payment of fine could be directed to run concurrently inter se; and (ii) whether the quantum of default sentences warranted reduction having regard to the appellant's financial condition and the statutory scheme.

Issue (i): whether default sentences imposed for non-payment of fine could be directed to run concurrently inter se.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes between substantive imprisonment and imprisonment awarded in default of fine. The relevant provisions make default imprisonment an additional consequence of non-payment and do not confer a discretion comparable to the one available for concurrent running of substantive sentences. Reading the sentencing provisions together, the Court held that allowing default terms to merge or run concurrently would undermine the deterrent purpose of fine and would dilute the mandate that such imprisonment stands in addition to the substantive sentence.

Conclusion: The default sentences could not be directed to run concurrently inter se.

Issue (ii): whether the quantum of default sentences warranted reduction having regard to the appellant's financial condition and the statutory scheme.

Analysis: While the fine imposed for the IPC offences was not excessive and the minimum fine prescribed for the MCOC Act offences had to be maintained, the Court accepted that the appellant's financial condition justified leniency in fixing the default terms. It therefore reduced the default sentence attached to each IPC count and each MCOC Act count to a lesser period, while preserving the fines themselves. On that basis, the aggregate default imprisonment was brought down substantially.

Conclusion: The default sentences were reduced, while the fines were maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reduction of default imprisonment; the conviction and the fines were left undisturbed, and the appellant was granted the benefit of a shorter aggregate default term.

Ratio Decidendi: Imprisonment in default of payment of fine is a penalty distinct from substantive imprisonment and, in the absence of express statutory power, cannot be made to run concurrently with other default sentences; however, its quantum may be moderated on relevant sentencing considerations without disturbing the fine itself.

---