1991 (12) TMI 277 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order quashing the proceedings for realization of fine.
2. Bar of limitation in recovery proceedings.
3. Interpretation of Section 70 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis:
1. The State of U.P. filed a criminal appeal against the High Court's order quashing the proceedings for realization of fine imposed on Mehtab Singh. The High Court set aside the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, and ruled that the recovery proceedings were barred by time as there was no order staying the recovery of the fine after the dismissal of the appeal in 1968. The Supreme Court observed that the recovery proceedings were not time-barred as there was a stay of recovery of the fine during the pendency of the appeal, as evidenced by previous court orders.

2. The issue of limitation in the recovery proceedings was raised before the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, who held that the proceedings were not time-barred as the period of limitation could only begin after the Supreme Court's order confirming the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court reiterated that the State must commence recovery proceedings within six years of the sentence, and the plea of limitation is not applicable if steps for realization have been initiated within this period. The Court emphasized that the suspension of fine collection by a higher court suspends the levy of the fine, thereby halting the running of the limitation period.

3. The interpretation of Section 70 of the Indian Penal Code was crucial in determining the validity of the recovery proceedings. The Supreme Court clarified that the State must initiate recovery proceedings within six years of the sentence, and the period of limitation does not start running if the fine is not leviable due to a stay order. The Court emphasized a common-sense reading of the provision, stating that once steps for recovery are initiated, the plea of limitation is irrelevant. The Court highlighted the importance of judicial orders and the suspension of fine collection in determining the applicability of the limitation period.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the Additional Sessions Judge's decision, emphasizing the importance of court orders, the suspension of fine recovery, and the initiation of recovery proceedings within the statutory limitation period.