IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3622 of 2011() ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRRP.1493/2007 Dated 21/02/2011 CC.38/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II,NADAPURAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- K.P.SOOPY, S/O.MOIDU, THERUVATH HOUSE, KUTTIADI P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF SUB JAIL, KOZHIKODE-673 001. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss CRMC.NO.3622/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURE: ANNEX.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.R.P.1493/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3622 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November 2011 O R D E R Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act. This Court, in Crl.R.P.No.1493/2007, modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Rs.3,15,000/- as fine, in default whereof he was to undergo S.I. for 6 months. But he did not pay the fine amount. Accordingly, he was committed to prison on 15.7.2011 to undergo the default sentence. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for remission of sentence on various grounds but he was told by the jail authorities that such remission cannot be extended to him since he is undergoing imprisonment in default of payment of fine. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there can be no distinction between imprisonment and imprisonment in default of payment of fine. Such a discrimination cannot be shown to an accused only because he could not remit the fine amount, the learned counsel Crl.M.C. No.3622 of 2011 -: 2 :- submits. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that Rule 300 of Kerala Prison Rules does not permit remission in such cases. The said Rule reads :- “300. Exclusion of certain sentences – No ordinary remission shall be earned in respect of any sentence of rigorous imprisonment amounting exclusive of any sentence passed in default of payment of fine, to less than three months.” 3. The principle contained in Sections 68 and 69 IPC would also make it clear that no remissions can be granted when the accused suffers imprisonment in default of payment of fine. If the convict is to pay a specified amount as fine, if remission is granted, then the possibility of the convict to remit the fine amount, even if it would be a part, will not be there and that must be the reason why no exemption or remission is granted without a sentence in default of payment of fine. In the light of what is stated above, I find no merit in this petition. Hence, it is dismissed. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J UDGE. Jvt