Skip to content


Public Prosecutor Vs. Balla Venkayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subjectcriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1944Mad448
AppellantPublic Prosecutor
RespondentBalla Venkayya
Excerpt:
- .....1943.2. the accused in the case was convicted for offences punishable under sections 448 and 379, penal code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 1/2 months for the offence punishable under section 379, penal code, and to pay a fine of rs. 50 with rigorous imprisonment for 1 1/2 months in default for that punishable under section 448, penal code. the imprisonments were directed to run concurrently. section 35, criminal p. c, deals only with cases of substantial punishments by imprisonments for distinct offences in the same case. it is only in such cases that provision is made ill that section for directing the sentences of imprisonments to run concurrently. section 398 of the code deals with cases of sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. it directs the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.

1. This is a petition by the Crown to revise the sentence imposed by the Sub-Magistrate of Razole on accused 1 in C. C. No. 230 of 1943.

2. The accused in the case was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 448 and 379, Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 1/2 months for the offence punishable under Section 379, Penal Code, and to pay a fine of Rs. 50 with rigorous imprisonment for 1 1/2 months in default for that punishable under Section 448, Penal Code. The imprisonments were directed to run concurrently. Section 35, Criminal P. C, deals only with cases of substantial punishments by imprisonments for distinct offences in the same case. It is only in such cases that provision is made ill that section for directing the sentences of imprisonments to run concurrently. Section 398 of the Code deals with cases of sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. It directs the sentence to run consecutively and not concurrently. Section 395 deals with cases of imprisonment awarded in different cases which may be directed to run concurrently. No provision is made in the Code for directing such imprisonments in default of payment of fine to run concurrently with the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded for any other offence tried in the same case. The order therefore directing the imprisonments to run concurrently is set aside.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //