9911796707
TMI Blog1934 (11) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the Sessions Judge of Sholapur refusing to order the withdrawal of a warrant issued under Section 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, The relevant facts are that in the year 1930 the present applicant was convicted of certain offences, and he was sentenced to substantive terms of imprisonment, and also to fines amounting to ₹ 1,500, with a sentence of imprisonment in default of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the warrant for the recovery of the fine issued against him Should be withdrawn, and in support of his contention he relies on the proviso to Section 386 (1), That proviso provides that if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue a warrant under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the special reasons should be reasons accounting for the fact that the fine has not been recovered before the sentence in default has been served, and any reasons which are directed to that point would be relevant. It may be that the authorities, through no negligence on their part, did not know of the existence of the property or the accused may have inherited property after he served his sente ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Judge himself gave as his reasons for not withdrawing the warrant that the offence was a serious one, and the complainant had been allotted part of the fine. In my view, reasons of that sort are not relevant because they do not account for the fine not having been recovered before the service of the sentence in default. For these reasons, I think the application must be refused. N.J. Wadia, J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
