TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (12) TMI 277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her of the respondents. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be noticed in brief: 3. Respondents' father, Mehtab Singh was prosecuted for .forgery in three separate cases. He was convicted by Shri B.C. Jauhari, the then Presiding Officer of the Linked Court of Farrukhabad-Mainpuri on 18.6.1964. Mehtab Singh was, inter alia, also sentenced to paying a fine of ₹ 2,000/- for each count of forgery. A total sum of ₹ 20,000/- became recoverable from him. In one of the cases Mehtab Singh preferred an appeal before the Allahabad High Court and the High Court on 22.6.1964, inter alia, stayed the recovery of fine during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal was, however, dismissed on 9.1.1968. Mehtab Singh filed an applicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Court in all the three appeals. In one the realisation of the fine had already been stayed by this Court. In other two appeals the sentences were of imprisonment. In these appeals, the applicant shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing two sureties to the satisfaction of the A.D.M.J., Mainpuri. 7. The appeals filed by Mehtab Singh in the Supreme Court were also dismissed on 10.1.1975. 8. In recovery proceedings certain objections were filed by Mehtab Singh before the Judicial Magistrate but these objections were dismissed on 2.5.1977. Against this order dated 2.5.1977 Mehtab Singh filed Criminal Revision No. 43 of 1977 before the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri. This Revision Petition was decided on 18.7.1977. The learned Sessions J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the dismissal of the Criminal Appeal by the Supreme Court on 9.8.1978, the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri issued warrants to the Collector of Mainpuri authorising him to realise the fine as the arrears of land revenue.The house and agricultural plots of the applicants were attached on 22.8.1978. Again objections, inter alia, that the recovery proceedings were barred by time were filed by the sons of Mehtab Singh. The learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 2.2.1979 dismissed the objections of the respondents. The respondents preferred an application under Section 482 of the CrPC before the Allahabad High Court against the order of the learned Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge dated 2.2.1979 and prayed for quashing of the proceedings ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of fine, there is no sentence of fine to be levied. 7. Even otherwise, on first principle, it is obvious that when a party has secured a stay of collection of fine and such period of stay extends over a long stretch and conceivably may even extend beyond six years, he cannot take up the stand that thanks to the stay he has obtained of the recovery of the fine, the fine itself has become irrecoverable. The judicial process cannot stultify the judicial orders. In the present case, the sentence of fine was suspended on the motion of the appellant himself. He enjoyed the benefit of the suspension or stay of the order arid now takes up the contrary stand that the sentence must be deemed to have been in force and the fine leviable. When a party ....