https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287770 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. en-us Tue, 12 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 May 2020 17:47:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287770 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 12 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287770