Concept of Fine
A fine or mulct is money that a court of law or other authority decides has to be paid as punishment for a crime or other offence. The amount of a fine can be determined case by case, but it is often announced in advance. A fine or mulct is money that a court of law or other authority decides has to be paid as punishment for a crime or other offence.

The amount of a fine can be determined case by case, but it is often announced in advance. The Courts may impose fine along with or without imprisonment. The Indian Penal Code mentions the punishment of fine for several offences, generally with or without imprisonment. In general language a penalty is imposed by an appropriate authority when a person have not complied with the law but have not committed any offence. In other words, Fine is the amount of the money that a court can order to pay for an offence after a successful prosecution in a matter.

Introduction To Section 64 -70 Of Indian Penal Code:

Some offences are punishable with imprisonment as well as fine, some with imprisonment or fine and some with fine only. What is to be done when an accused is sentenced to pay a fine and he is either not in a position to pay it or does not want to pay it. He cannot obviously be allowed to remain without punishment, and the only other form of punishment which may be awarded to him is imprisonment.

Imprisonment awarded for non-payment of fine shall be in excess of any other imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced or to which he may be liable under a commutation of sentence, that is, it shall not be concurrent with any other imprisonment (Section 64). Thus, where the Court imposes two sentences of imprisonment and also fine, on each of the two counts, it may order the substantive terms of imprisonment to run concurrently but the terms of imprisonment in default of fine must run consecutively.

If there are more than one sentences of fine, imprisonment in default in such sentence shall be consecutive, not concurrent and a direction that they shall run concurrently shall be illegal. Courts specify the term of imprisonment which the offender shall undergo in default of the payment of fine and where it is not so specified, as is generally the case where a sentence of fine only is given; the term of imprisonment has to be calculated according to a prescribed scale. Courts also when specifying the terms of imprisonment to be undergone in default of the payment of fine are guided by such scale.

When the offence is punishable with imprisonment as well as fine, imprisonment in default of fine shall not exceed one-fourth of the term of imprisonment which is the maximum fixed for the offence (Section 65).The maximum term of imprisonment for theft is 3 years, one-fourth whereof is 9 months.

The maximum limit up to which imprisonment in default may go is 9 months and is open to the court to pass any lesser sentence but a sentence of imprisonment in default in excess of 9 months shall be illegal. Such extra punishment may be of any description to which the offender might have been sentenced for the offence, i.e., it may be rigorous or simple accordingly as the substantive term of imprisonment is rigorous or simple (Section 66).

When the offence is punishable with fine only, imprisonment in default shall always be simple, and it shall not exceed 2 months when the fine does not exceed Rs. 50, shall not exceed 4 months when the fine does not exceed Rs. 100 and shall not exceed 6 months in any other case (Section 67).

An Overview
In an important case where accused is convicted with fine (with or without imprisonment), Madras High Court has upheld that the accused defaults in payment of fine in due time, he will be awarded imprisonment for default. Such punishment will be treated separately with the main offence. Imprisonment in default of payment shall terminate as soon as the fine is paid or realised (Section 68) and it shall be proportionate to the amount of such fine (Section 69), e.g.,

A is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and the term of imprisonment in default, is 4 months, if Rs. 75 are paid or realised towards such fine, the term of imprisonment shall be reduced by three-
fourths of the term and the offender shall undergo only one month's imprisonment.

Fine or any unpaid part of it may be levied at any time:

1. within 6 years of the passing of the sentence, or
2. before the expiration of the period of the sentence, whichever is later.

The death of the offender shall not discharge the property from liability (Section 70) and fine may be realised even when the offender has undergone full imprisonment in default. The offender cannot be permitted to choose whether he will suffer in his person or his property.

His property shall be safe only after the expiry of the period of limitation and if he dies before such expiry, the property shall remain subject to liability. The period of limitation protects his property but not his person and he can be arrested and made to undergo imprisonment in default even after the expiry of 6 years.

The period of limitation does not start to run under Section 70 where on account of an order of a higher Court the fine has ceased to be leviable. Section 70 says that the State shall levy fine within six years from the date of his sentence. To levy is to realise or to collect. It is clear that is meant is what within six years the State must commence proceeding for realisation, not complete it.

For failure under the Code has not effect of corrupting the blood and extinguishing its power of transmitting inheritable rights. It follows that in realisation of fine when the ancestral property of a convict is put to sale, what is transferred to the Government or rather to the purchaser through the Government, are the personal rights of the convict in the property and nothing which he could not have assigned aware.

The period of limitation prescribed under Section 70 of the Code does not apply to recovery of fine imposed by the High Court for its contempt because the power of the High Court to punish for contempt of itself arises under Article 215 of the Constitution.

Penalty & Fine

The terms fine and penalty are sometimes used synonymously. But they do not constitute one and the same thing. There are several differences between both the terms.
A fine can be considered as money that a court of law or other authority decides that has to be paid as punishment for a crime or any other offense but penalty is of not same nature.

Section 64 Of The Indian Penal Code

Sentence For Imprisonment For Non- Payment Of Fine:

In every case, if the offence is punishable the offender is imprisoned as well with the fine. The offender is fine whether with the imprisonment or not. In cases where the offender is punishable.

{2-with fine or Imprisonment or fine or with only fine it is competent to the court, which sentences such offender to command by the sentence that, in failure of payment of the fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a particular term, which imprisonment shall be in balance of any other imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced or to which he may be liable under a commutation of a Sentence
Explanation-

• As is clear from the language, this section has no application where sentence of death has been awarded. The word 'offence' has the same meaning as given under section 40 of the Code. Sections 63 to 70 of the Code have been referred to under section 25 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 also.
   
• The section makes provisions for imprisonment in default of payment of the fine. If the first para is read carefully, it is clear that use of the words 'as well as' indicates that the section applies where an offence is punishable with imprisonment and also to such cases where it is punishable with fine.
   
• The second para makes it clear that the section also applies to cases where an offence is punishable with imprisonment or fine, or with fine only.
• The third para states that in all the above mentioned cases the Court is empowered, while sentencing an offender to a fine, to direct that in default of payment of the fine the offender has to undergo an additional term of imprisonment. The use of the word 'competent' in the third paragraph shows that the Court.

In P.R. Anjanappa v. M/s. Yurej Agencies Private Limited:
The Karnataka High Court observed that if we look into sections 64 and 70 of the Indian Penal Code it is clear that the property of the accused is liable for the payment of fine even if he has undergone imprisonment in default of fine and as such even on death of the offender does not discharge any property which would after his death be legally liable for his debts due from him (including liability) to discharge the fine.

In Monica Christy Chikwa v. State of Punjab:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that where two sentences of fine were imposed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and two defaults in respect thereof committed, the defaulting convict would have to undergo two separate terms of imprisonment so as to discharge the penal consequences of his default, and thus such terms of imprisonments would obviously be consecutive and not concurrent. Any other interpretation would be contrary to the spirit of section 64, Indian Penal Code as also to the very nature of an imprisonment to be undergone for default in payment of fine.

Limit to Imprisonment for non payment of fine under Indian Penal Code are defined under Section 65 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Provisions under section 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 and 70 in the Act are:

Section 65 Of The Indian Panel Code
Limit To Imprisonment For Non-Payment Of Fine When Imprisonment And Fine Awardable:
The term for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned in default of payment of a fine shall not exceed one- fourth of the term of imprisonment which is the maximum fixed for the offence, if the offence be punishable with imprisonment as well as fine:

Explanations:

• According to this section if the offender is awarded with imprisonment and fine both then this section states that court cannot award additional imprisonment in excess of one-fourth of the term of maximum imprisonment fixed in the offence.
   
• The use of the words 'imprisonment as well as fine' indicates that the section is applicable where an offence is punishable with imprisonment and fine and also where the offence is punishable with imprisonment or fine, but not both.
   
• Where the offence is punishable with imprisonment or fine, but not both. section does not apply to such cases which are covered under section 67 of the Code where the only punishment is fine. The section makes it clear that in such cases the imprisonment in default of payment of fine can in no case exceed one-fourth of the term which is the maximum provided for the offence.
   
• For instance, if the maximum term of imprisonment provided for an offence is one year, the term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine can never exceed three months which is the one-fourth of one year.
   
• Ram Jas Case Vs State of UP Stated that the order of the High Court of imprisonment for three years' in default of payment of fine with respect to an offence under section 419 with section 109, Indian Penal Code was illegal because the maximum term of imprisonment provided under that section is of three years and, therefore, the imprisonment in default of payment of fine could not exceed one-fourth of three years, that is, nine months.

Illustrations:

• Let's take section 379 of Indian penal code,1860 Section 379 - Punishment of theft -Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of
  either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both. So lets assume if a convict was awarded a sentence of 3 years of imprisonment and fine under section 379 for committing theft and if he defaults to pay that fine then he can get additional imprisonment in default of payment of fine for not more than 274 days of imprisonment as in this case. Section 379 provides that maximum imprisonment of 3 years for theft it is one-fourth term will be 247 days as the maximum as per sec 65 which can be awarded on default of payment of fine.
   
• Let's take section 380 of Indian penal code, 1860 Section 380 - Theft in dwelling house- Whoever commits theft in any building , tent or vessel, which building , tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling , or used for the custody of property , shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years ,and shall also be liable to fine ,So lets assume if a convict was awarded a sentence of 7 years of imprisonment and fine under section 380 for committing theft and if he defaults to pay that fine then he can get additional imprisonment in default of payment of fine for more not than 639 days of imprisonment as in this case. Section 380 provides that maximum imprisonment of 7 years.

Section 66 Of Indian Penal Code "Description Of Imprisonment For Non-Payment Of Fine:

The imprisonment which the Court imposes in default of payment of a fine may be of any description to which the offender might have been sentenced for the offence.
There are Two kinds of Description of Imprisonment provided

Simple & Rigorous
This Section Provides that Court can award imprisonment of any description which is provided for in the provisions related to that offense.
The section will apply only where court will grant both fine and Imprisonment, but if there is only fine is imposed on the offender, this section will not be applicable in such circumstances.

• The imprisonment in default of payment of a fine may be rigorous as well as simple. Whether it could be rigorous or simple depends on the nature of the offence for which the offender is sentenced.
• If the offence committed by him could be punished with rigorous imprisonment, the imprisonment in default of payment of the fine could be rigorous.
• On the other hand, if the offence committed by him could be punished with simple imprisonment, the imprisonment in default of payment of the fine could be simple only.

Illustrations:

• A is a Person, Who is not able to pay the fine at time, Now it is the discretion of the Court whether rigorous imprisonment or Simple imprisonment as court thinks appropriate.
• Person X commits any crime which is heinous in nature, court will firstly see the nature of the Offence. On the basis of that, he will be imprisoned.

Section 67 Of The Indian Penal Code Imprisonment Of Non-Payment Of Fine-If The Offence Be Punishable With Fine Only:
1[the imprisonment which the Court imposes in default of payment of the fine shall be simple, and] the term for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned, in default of payment of fine, shall not exceed the following scale, that is to say, for any term not exceeding two months when the amount of the fine shall not exceed fifty rupees, and for any term not exceeding four months when the amount shall not exceed one hundred rupees, and for any term not exceeding six months in any other case.

• This section applies to such cases alone where the offence committed is punishable with fine only. The section deals with two matters.
  • Firstly, where the offence committed by the offender could be punished with fine only, the sentence of imprisonment in default of the payment of fine shall be simple only.
  • Secondly, the scale of such simple imprisonment imposed in default of payment of the fine shall be a maximum term of two months where the fine is not more than fifty rupees, a maximum term of four months where the fine is not more than one hundred rupees, and a maximum term of six months where the fine is more than one hundred rupees.
• If a person commits an offense punishable with fine only, they can be imprisoned with simple description only.
• If the person is fined with 50 rupees or less, the maximum imprisonment can be for 2 months.
• If the fine is more than 50 rupees and up to 100 rupees, the imprisonment can be for 4 months.
• If the fine is more than 100 rupees, the maximum imprisonment can be for a term of 6 months. These are the maximum terms that can be awarded for non-payment or default in payment of fine.

Illustrations:

• Z is a boy, commits an offense, makes default in payment of a fine of 150 rupees. In such a situation, the boy Z will be sentenced to imprisonment for 4 months.
• C is a woman, commits a crime, and fined 60 rupees. In such a situation, she will be imprisoned for 2 months.

Section 68 Of Indian Panel Code Imprisonment To Terminate On Payment Of Fine:
The imprisonment imposed in default of payment of a fine shall terminate whenever that fine is either paid or levied by the process of law.

• The imprisonment offered to the offender because of the non-payment of the fine shall be terminated when the due fine is paid. In simple words, a person imprisoned due to default of payment of fine will be released on the payment of fine by the court of law.
• The fine imposed on an offender by the court of law must be deposited forthwith or paid to the court as soon as possible.
• The fine must be paid to the court as directed by the law without any default in payment or coercion.
• If a person on whom a fine is imposed by the court is not able to pay the fine, then it is the duty of the court of law to send the person for imprisonment.
• In such cases where the offender is not able to pay the fine before the specific time prescribed by the court of law, the court cannot refuse to accept the fine after the date.
• For example, if a person P is not able to pay the fine to the court of law before 31 August 2020 (as prescribed by the court), he will be allowed to pay the fine after the prescribed date.
• In this situation, the High court cannot extend the time to deposit the fine, but the petitioner can avail remedy under this section.
• As soon as the fine is paid by the offender to the court of law, the imprisonment shall be automatically terminated (Modes of levy fine 421 to 425 of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973).
• The court has an obligation to free the person from imprisonment upon payment done by him to the court. The person cannot be kept under partial imprisonment.

Illustrations:

• A commits a crime, and the court imposes a fine on him. Because of low financial condition, he could not pay the fine to the court before the prescribed time. After some days, he goes to pay the fine after the date. The court cannot refuse to accept the amount from him.
• Z commits a crime, and court imposed fine on him. He paid the fine on time. Now, his imprisonment shall be terminated as he paid the fine.
• X commits a crime and is fined with a larger amount but couldn't pay. He got imprisoned. In such circumstances, after he pays his fine, he will automatically be terminated from imprisonment, and the court cannot put him under imprisonment.

Section 69 Of The Indian Penal Code
Termination Of Imprisonment On Payment Of Proportional Part Of Fine:
Termination of imprisonment on payment of proportional part of fine.- If, before the expiration of the term of imprisonment fixed in default of payment, such a proportion of the fine be paid or levied that the term of imprisonment suffered in default of payment is not less than proportional to the part of the fine still unpaid, the imprisonment shall terminate.

• If before the expiry of the term of imprisonment three fourth of the fine is paid then the offender must be released within a month.
• If three-fourth of the fine is paid after the expiry of the month and the offender is still imprisoned then the offender must be immediately released.
• If half of the fine is paid before the expiry of two months then the offender must be discharged as soon as two months are completed.
• If half of the fine is paid or charged at the time of expiration of those two months or at any later time while the offender is still imprisoned then the offender must be immediately discharged.
• In case both imprisonment and Penalty awarded.
• Fine of 100/-
• 4 Month's imprisonment in default of Fine
• Paid Rs.75 before one month.
• Imprisonment shall be terminated automatically as soon as one month completed.

Illustrations:

• A is sentenced to a fine of one hundred rupees and to four months' imprisonment in default of payment. Here, if seventy-five rupees of the fine be paid or levied before the expiration of one month of the imprisonment. A will be discharged as soon as the first month has expired.
• If seventy-five rupees be paid or levied at the time of the expiration of the first month, or at any later time while A continues in imprisonment. A will be immediately discharged.
• If fifty rupees of the fine be paid or levied before the expiration of two months of the imprisonment, A will be discharged as soon as the two months are completed.
• If fifty rupees be paid or levied at the time of the expiration of those two months, or at any later time while A continues in imprisonment, A will be immediately discharged.

Section 70 Of Indian Penal Code
Fine Leviable Within Six Years Or, During Imprisonment- Death Not To Discharge From Liability:
The fine, or any part thereof which remains unpaid, may e levied at any time within six years after the passing of the sentence, and if, under the sentence, the offender be liable to imprisonment for a longer period than six years, then at any time previous to the expiration of that period; and the death of the offender does not discharge from the liability any property which would, after his death, be legally liable for his debts.

The imprisonment which one has undergone in default of payment of fine does not release him from his liability to pay the fine. On the face of it, it may look a little harsh but that is the mind of the makers of the Code and they had sound logic behind this thinking. Consequently, the property of one who has undergone imprisonment in default of payment of fine could be taken by distress in order to realise the fine.

The fine remaining unpaid in full or in part may be levied at any time within six years after the sentence was passed. If, however, an offender is liable to imprisonment for a longer period than six years, then the fine may be levied at any time before that period expires. If the offender dies before paying the fine or before the fine is levied, his property would be legally liable to pay off his debts.

In this context section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is also relevant which states:

1. when an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may:
   
   1. Issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender;
   2. issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter: provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no court shall issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under section 357(2).
       
2. The State Government may make rules regulating the manner in which warrant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant.
    
3. where the court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law: provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender. Fine may be recovered within six years of the passing Sentence.

• But period of suspension has to be excluded from six years.
• Six years shall be counted from the date of passing Sentence by the lower court.
• If Imprisonment is more than six years than till expiration of imprisonment.
• No effect of death for levy of line.
• His property shall be liable after death as in case of debts.
• Levy means 'Seizing' of property, not realizing the property.
• After expiry of six months seizing of property shall be time barred.
• Levy of fine by High-court for contempt of court has no limitations.
• Recovery of tax is not covered under Section 70.

Illustrations:

• A commits a crime, and after committing crime, court punishes him with a big amount of fine but subsequently after committing crime, he dies; court will levy the fine even in this situation.
• X commits a crime on 2 September 2020, and court gives him a punishment of 6 months on 6 September 2020; then in such circumstances, six months would be counted from 6 September, not from 2 September.
• C dies after committing a crime, his property would be seized by the court.

Mehtav Singh Vs State:
The Supreme Court has held in Mehtav Singh v. State, that if a higher Court has given a stay or suspension, the period of the same must be excluded while computing the period of six years under this section.

Sham Singh v. State:
The accused, who had been convicted under sections 408 and 468 of the Code, had already served his substantive sentence of six years and was undergoing imprisonment in default of payment of fine, filed a writ of habeas corpus contending that since six years were already over, his imprisonment in default of payment of fine was illegal.

Palakdhari Singh And Others v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh And others:
This appeal raises the question of the applicability of Section 70 of the Indian Penal Code to fines imposed in convictions for offences under the Indian Penal Code but tried by tribunals called the Panchayati Adalats, now known as Nyaya Panchayats. The appellants were convicted by a Panchayati Adalat on for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to a fine of Rs 75 each.

A revision against that order was taken to the High Court which was dismissed In of 1958, proceedings were taken for the recovery of the fine imposed against the appellants by the Panchayati Adalat. In a revision against that order an objection was raised that the fine was not recoverable as it was barred by Section 70 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order held the recovery of the fine to be barred under that section. But a revision was taken to the District Magistrate who recommended the setting aside of the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the ground that there was no period of limitation.

The High Court by its order accepted the recommendation of the District Magistrate and held that there is no limit to the time within which the fines imposed by a Panchayati Adalat can be realised. It is against this order that the appellants have brought this appeal by special leave.

Conclusion & Suggestions:
Crime rate in India has been considerably increasing from year to year and the convictions rate hard become very low and that too the courts have been awarding very merge punishments by using their vide discretionary powers. There are more chances to get lenient punishment by the proved offenders due to loose frame work of the legislature in fixing the punishment for several offences in the Code.

There is more probability to apply the personally favoured brain and individual opinion of the judicial officers while conforming the sentence to the offenders, due to wide discretion available in the present sentencing jurisprudence. So that, there are more chances to escape for the accused from the clutches of the law.

Already Indian Criminal Justice System is working on the motto of "hundred criminals can be escaped, but one innocent should not be punished". In these circumstances, if the minimum punishment is conformed in the penal statutes in general and in Indian Penal Code in particular as it is covering substantial portion of the offences in India by the legislature through amendments, the trial court judge will be curtailed by the Statute and he is forced to give punishment within the limit stipulated by the legislature.

Crime is age-old phenomenon, a deep rooted evil, born and developed along with the development of man and gradually became universal malady afflicting each, Fine has worked as a fear in the mind of the criminals, which prevents them from making crimes. The purpose of the penal law is to express a formal social condemnation of forbidden conduct buttressed by sanction calculated to prevent it. There was a close relationship between religion and criminal law in Mohammedan political practice in the eighteenth century.

When The views held by one Government and its successor differ fundamentally and corresponding change can be expected in the law of crimes and in the administration of criminal laws. Such a fundamental change took place between 1773 and 1861 in India The nineteenth century witnessed the introduction of English Law in India.

The Indian Penal Code drafted by Lord Macaulay was introduced in India. In 1833 Lord Macaulay persuaded the House of Commons that the ideal moment had come for codification of Indian Laws. The Indian Penal Code which is the first code prepared by the English authors is praised all over the World in there day due to its greatness in arranging the provisions, defining the offences, division of offences into chapters, simple words used in provisions.

It became a model code to some of the adjacent countries. The Code has been in implementation since about centuries without undergoing to any comprehensive amendment so far. The punishments fixed to the most of the offences defined in I.P.C. are aged about 149 years and offences which are less grievous in those days became more grievous today.

The scale used by the framers of Indian Penal Code who were the English Commissioners to measure the gravity, seriousness of offence was social economic, religious and political set up prevailed on those days. So the punishments which are really fixed between the years 1834-37 and subjected to alteration by additions and omissions in the hands of eminent English people about 27 years could not be continued as such in the light of present changing scenario.

References

1. Universal's Guide to Judicial Service Examination. Universal Law Publishing. p.
2. ISBN 978-93-5035-029-4.
3. Lal Kalla, Krishan (1985). The Literary Heritage of Kashmir. Jammu and Kashmir: Mittal Publications. p. 75. Retrieved 19 September 2014.
4. Law Commission of India - Early Beginnings. Law Commission of India. Retrieved 19 September 2014.
5. Historical Introduction to IPC (PDF) (PDF).
6. https://www.firstpost.com/india/jammu-and-kashmir-reorganised-into-uts-of-jk-ladakh-security-under-centres-ambit-state-constitution-ranbir-penal-code-abolished-7579091.html
7. Preamble of IPC (download IPC in PDF).
8. B.M.Gandhi. Indian Panel Code (2013 ed.). EBC. pp. 1-832. ISBN 978-81-7012-892-2. "India penal code" (PDF). India code - a repository of state and central acts. Ministry of law and justice. Retrieved 23 March 2020.

Written By: Vishal Banga, Student of LLM Guru Nanak Dev University Regional Campus Jalandhar Punjab