Default imprisonment for non-payment of fine is a distinct penalty and cannot run concurrently with other default sentences.

Imprisonment in default of payment of fine is treated as a distinct penalty, separate from substantive sentencing, so default terms cannot be ordered to run concurrently with each other. The statutory scheme requires such imprisonment to operate in addition to the punishment already imposed, preserving the deterrent effect of separate fines. On quantum, the fine amounts were left intact because they were not excessive and, for the organised crime offences, were statutorily prescribed at the minimum. The default imprisonment, however, was moderated in view of the circumstances, with the fine itself remaining unchanged.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sentences imposed in default of payment of fine can be directed to run concurrently with each other. (ii) Whether the default sentences imposed on account of non-payment of fine required reduction having regard to the appellant's financial condition and the nature of the fine imposed.

Issue (i): Whether sentences imposed in default of payment of fine can be directed to run concurrently with each other.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes substantive sentences from imprisonment in default of fine. The provisions governing concurrent or consecutive operation of sentences deal with substantive punishments, while the provision relating to imprisonment for non-payment of fine requires such imprisonment to be in addition to, and in excess of, other imprisonment. Allowing default sentences to run concurrently would dilute the deterrent effect of separate fines and defeat the legislative purpose behind mandatory or minimum fines.

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

Issue (ii): Whether the default sentences imposed on account of non-payment of fine required reduction having regard to the appellant's financial condition and the nature of the fine imposed.

Analysis: The fine imposed on the appellant was not interfered with, as it was not excessive and, in respect of the organised crime offences, was statutorily mandated at the prescribed minimum. However, the default term attached to the fines was considered excessive in the circumstances. The Court therefore moderated the default imprisonment to one month for each of the four IPC counts and to one year for each of the three MCOC Act counts, while keeping the fine amounts intact.

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

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained partial relief only on the quantum of imprisonment in default of payment of fine, and the appeal succeeded to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Imprisonment in default of payment of fine is a distinct penalty and not a substantive sentence, so it cannot be directed to run concurrently with other default sentences and may be moderated only on appropriate grounds without disturbing the fine itself.

---