This document discusses various theories of punishment under the Indian criminal justice system. It begins by defining punishment and distinguishing between private and public wrongs. It then outlines the main purposes of criminal justice as punishing wrongdoers and protecting society. Four main theories of punishment are described - deterrent theory, preventive theory, reformative theory, and retributive theory. The document also discusses types of punishment under the Indian Penal Code such as death, imprisonment, forfeiture of property, and fines. It analyzes some important court cases related to capital punishment and the reformative approach.
This ppt gives a structured answer as to the elements of crime and its application in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860. It describes how the different sections of IPC are based on the 4 elements of crime i.e. human being, mens rea, actus reus and injury along with cases.
Running head APPLYING ETHICAL THEORY 1APPLYING ETHICAL THEORY .docxSUBHI7
Running head: APPLYING ETHICAL THEORY 1
APPLYING ETHICAL THEORY 2
Applying Ethical Theory
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course Title
Date
Applying Ethical Theory
Capital punishment refers to the legalised killing of individuals as punishment for crimes. According to Materni (2013), the acts of capital punishment have been in place in the United States since the colonial times. The categories of crimes that led to capital punishment included bearing false witness, manslaughter, adultery, sodomy, bestiality, poisoning, murder, blasphemy, witchcraft, idolatry, rebellion, and conspiracy among others. However, the use of capital punishment is in itself considered murder. The aspect is attributed to the fact that the use of capital punishment is tremendously confined to murder. The government uses various theories in support of capital punishment to sustain order. The utilitarian theory will be used to approach the issue of capital punishment. The utilitarian theory strives to punish the offender to discourage wrongdoings in the future.
Utilitarian theory and capital punishment
As earlier indicated, the utilitarian theory is meant to restore sanity in the society. The regulations should be used to enhance happiness in the society. Ideally, capital punishment is incongruent with happiness. Therefore, the use of capital punishment should be minimum or done away with completely. The utilitarians believe that a crime free community cannot exist. The utilitarians, therefore, endeavours to inflict a significant punishment to avert crimes in the future (Manji, 2006). Notably, the theory is said to be consequential in nature. In essence, the utilitarian theory identifies that punishment incorporates consequences for the society and the offender. It, therefore, holds that the entire good offered through the punishment should surpass the entire evil.
The utilitarian theory specifies that criminal punishment should be intended to deter criminal conducts in the future. Deterrence works on both a general and specific level (Manji, 2006). The general deterrence ensures that the punishment prevents other individuals from committing the offences. The punishment, therefore, functions as an example of the entire society. It, therefore, puts individuals on the lookout that criminal offences cannot go unpunished. Conversely, the specific deterrence ensures that punishment prevents the same individual from repeating the crime. The specific deterrence operates in two ways. The offender can be imprisoned to physically avert the person from committing a crime for a particular period. Alternatively, the incapacitation is intended to be hostile to discourage the offender from committing another crime.
Explanation of utilitarian theory
The utilitarianism theory states that morality of actions is determined through adherence to the principle of great happiness. The principle guides individuals to ensure greatest degree of happiness for a consi ...
This ppt gives a structured answer as to the elements of crime and its application in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860. It describes how the different sections of IPC are based on the 4 elements of crime i.e. human being, mens rea, actus reus and injury along with cases.
Running head APPLYING ETHICAL THEORY 1APPLYING ETHICAL THEORY .docxSUBHI7
Running head: APPLYING ETHICAL THEORY 1
APPLYING ETHICAL THEORY 2
Applying Ethical Theory
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course Title
Date
Applying Ethical Theory
Capital punishment refers to the legalised killing of individuals as punishment for crimes. According to Materni (2013), the acts of capital punishment have been in place in the United States since the colonial times. The categories of crimes that led to capital punishment included bearing false witness, manslaughter, adultery, sodomy, bestiality, poisoning, murder, blasphemy, witchcraft, idolatry, rebellion, and conspiracy among others. However, the use of capital punishment is in itself considered murder. The aspect is attributed to the fact that the use of capital punishment is tremendously confined to murder. The government uses various theories in support of capital punishment to sustain order. The utilitarian theory will be used to approach the issue of capital punishment. The utilitarian theory strives to punish the offender to discourage wrongdoings in the future.
Utilitarian theory and capital punishment
As earlier indicated, the utilitarian theory is meant to restore sanity in the society. The regulations should be used to enhance happiness in the society. Ideally, capital punishment is incongruent with happiness. Therefore, the use of capital punishment should be minimum or done away with completely. The utilitarians believe that a crime free community cannot exist. The utilitarians, therefore, endeavours to inflict a significant punishment to avert crimes in the future (Manji, 2006). Notably, the theory is said to be consequential in nature. In essence, the utilitarian theory identifies that punishment incorporates consequences for the society and the offender. It, therefore, holds that the entire good offered through the punishment should surpass the entire evil.
The utilitarian theory specifies that criminal punishment should be intended to deter criminal conducts in the future. Deterrence works on both a general and specific level (Manji, 2006). The general deterrence ensures that the punishment prevents other individuals from committing the offences. The punishment, therefore, functions as an example of the entire society. It, therefore, puts individuals on the lookout that criminal offences cannot go unpunished. Conversely, the specific deterrence ensures that punishment prevents the same individual from repeating the crime. The specific deterrence operates in two ways. The offender can be imprisoned to physically avert the person from committing a crime for a particular period. Alternatively, the incapacitation is intended to be hostile to discourage the offender from committing another crime.
Explanation of utilitarian theory
The utilitarianism theory states that morality of actions is determined through adherence to the principle of great happiness. The principle guides individuals to ensure greatest degree of happiness for a consi ...
Capital Punishment
Capital Punishment Essay
Essay on Capital Punishment
Capital Punishment Essay
Capital Punishment
Capital Punishment
Capital Punishment Essay
Running Head CAPITAL PUNISHMENT12Capital Punishment and How.docxjoellemurphey
Running Head: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 12
Capital Punishment and How the Court Process Works
Capital punishments have raised several issues, and there is need to evaluate them in order to assess the practicality and effectiveness of the punishment. In this perspective, this research will be able to evaluate all the four aforementioned issues that relate to the problem of capital punishment in the courts. To this end, the pros and cons of the capital punishment will enable a recommendation in order to address the problem and issues. Critical analysis of all the factors raised will contribute to better investigation of all the listed factors bearing on the problem. Through the discussion of the various issues that affect the capital punishment way of dealing with an offender of heinous acts, the research paper will enable one to shed more light on the available courses of action other that capital punishment in the criminal justice system. Comment by Antonio: Input the word “a” after the word “is” Comment by Antonio: Remove the phrase “be able to”… The statement should read “will evaluate” Comment by Antonio: Delete all
Capital punishment in the United States of America’s criminal justice system is not only inconsistent with the available laws of rule of law and order in the country, but it is also in a great way contribute to violations by this same country that is an advocator for adherence of the laid down international laws. This raises one of the main controversies of the laws on capital punishments in some states in United States as it has great implications on the rule of law and international standards that the laws are founded on.
Capital punishment provides a rational way in which the criminal justice system deters recurrence of some high felony crimes such as rape, premeditated murder, torture, and any other serious crimes since the law aims at removing the offender from the society. These arguments provide that the law should guarantee a safety net in which the law minimizes the chances of the crimes being committed again by either the offender of the prospective criminals (Potter & Kappeler, 2002). In this perspective, the laws that encourage the rule of execution are supported by this school of thought that the offenders will be discouraged. However, there are issues of the applicability of the law in capital punishment and as a law that meets its agenda. Comment by Antonio: Great argument!
First and foremost, capital punishment is a great violation of the constitution and other laws that give human beings the right to life and international law based on the right of a human being. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 provides for the right of every human being to the right of life. By stating that no one has the authority or mandate to subject one to a torturous and inhuman punishment and treatment, the universal human rights by the united nations provides proof ...
Essay on Capital Punishment
Is Capital Punishment Ethical? Essay
capital punishment Essay
Capital Punishment
Capital Punishment Essay
Capital Punishment Essay
Capital Punishment
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
Military Commissions details LtCol Thomas Jasper as Detailed Defense CounselThomas (Tom) Jasper
Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Notice of the Chief Defense Counsel's detailing of LtCol Thomas F. Jasper, Jr. USMC, as Detailed Defense Counsel for Abd Al Hadi Al-Iraqi on 6 August 2014 in the case of United States v. Hadi al Iraqi (10026)
RIGHTS OF VICTIM EDITED PRESENTATION(SAIF JAVED).pptxOmGod1
Victims of crime have a range of rights designed to ensure their protection, support, and participation in the justice system. These rights include the right to be treated with dignity and respect, the right to be informed about the progress of their case, and the right to be heard during legal proceedings. Victims are entitled to protection from intimidation and harm, access to support services such as counseling and medical care, and the right to restitution from the offender. Additionally, many jurisdictions provide victims with the right to participate in parole hearings and the right to privacy to protect their personal information from public disclosure. These rights aim to acknowledge the impact of crime on victims and to provide them with the necessary resources and involvement in the judicial process.
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
WINDING UP of COMPANY, Modes of DissolutionKHURRAMWALI
Winding up, also known as liquidation, refers to the legal and financial process of dissolving a company. It involves ceasing operations, selling assets, settling debts, and ultimately removing the company from the official business registry.
Here's a breakdown of the key aspects of winding up:
Reasons for Winding Up:
Insolvency: This is the most common reason, where the company cannot pay its debts. Creditors may initiate a compulsory winding up to recover their dues.
Voluntary Closure: The owners may decide to close the company due to reasons like reaching business goals, facing losses, or merging with another company.
Deadlock: If shareholders or directors cannot agree on how to run the company, a court may order a winding up.
Types of Winding Up:
Voluntary Winding Up: This is initiated by the company's shareholders through a resolution passed by a majority vote. There are two main types:
Members' Voluntary Winding Up: The company is solvent (has enough assets to pay off its debts) and shareholders will receive any remaining assets after debts are settled.
Creditors' Voluntary Winding Up: The company is insolvent and creditors will be prioritized in receiving payment from the sale of assets.
Compulsory Winding Up: This is initiated by a court order, typically at the request of creditors, government agencies, or even by the company itself if it's insolvent.
Process of Winding Up:
Appointment of Liquidator: A qualified professional is appointed to oversee the winding-up process. They are responsible for selling assets, paying off debts, and distributing any remaining funds.
Cease Trading: The company stops its regular business operations.
Notification of Creditors: Creditors are informed about the winding up and invited to submit their claims.
Sale of Assets: The company's assets are sold to generate cash to pay off creditors.
Payment of Debts: Creditors are paid according to a set order of priority, with secured creditors receiving payment before unsecured creditors.
Distribution to Shareholders: If there are any remaining funds after all debts are settled, they are distributed to shareholders according to their ownership stake.
Dissolution: Once all claims are settled and distributions made, the company is officially dissolved and removed from the business register.
Impact of Winding Up:
Employees: Employees will likely lose their jobs during the winding-up process.
Creditors: Creditors may not recover their debts in full, especially if the company is insolvent.
Shareholders: Shareholders may not receive any payout if the company's debts exceed its assets.
Winding up is a complex legal and financial process that can have significant consequences for all parties involved. It's important to seek professional legal and financial advice when considering winding up a company.
ALL EYES ON RAFAH BUT WHY Explain more.pdf46adnanshahzad
All eyes on Rafah: But why?. The Rafah border crossing, a crucial point between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, often finds itself at the center of global attention. As we explore the significance of Rafah, we’ll uncover why all eyes are on Rafah and the complexities surrounding this pivotal region.
INTRODUCTION
What makes Rafah so significant that it captures global attention? The phrase ‘All eyes are on Rafah’ resonates not just with those in the region but with people worldwide who recognize its strategic, humanitarian, and political importance. In this guide, we will delve into the factors that make Rafah a focal point for international interest, examining its historical context, humanitarian challenges, and political dimensions.
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v/s Union of India.pptxshweeta209
transfer of the P.I.L filed by lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in Delhi High Court to Supreme Court.
on the issue of UNIFORM MARRIAGE AGE of men and women.
Responsibilities of the office bearers while registering multi-state cooperat...Finlaw Consultancy Pvt Ltd
Introduction-
The process of register multi-state cooperative society in India is governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. This process requires the office bearers to undertake several crucial responsibilities to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory frameworks. The key office bearers typically include the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, along with other elected members of the managing committee. Their responsibilities encompass administrative, legal, and financial duties essential for the successful registration and operation of the society.
3. CONCEPT OF PUNISHMENT
Punishment, according to the dictionary, involves
the infliction of pain or forfeiture, it is the infliction of
a penalty, the purpose of punishment is to cause
physical pain to the wrong-doer, it serves little
purpose.
4. CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Blackstone writes : “ wrongs are divisible into two
sorts, private wrongs and public wrongs. The former
are an infringement of the private or civil rights
belonging to individuals, considered as individuals,
and are thereupon frequently termed civil injuries; the
second are a breach and violation of public rights and
duties which affect the whole community considered
as a community and are distinguished by the harsher
appellation of crimes and misdemeanors.”
5. A crime is an act deemed by law to be harmful to
society in general.
Murder injures primarily the particular victim but its
disregard of human life does not allow the same to be a
matter between the murderer and the family of the
murdered.
Those who commit such acts are proceeded against by
the State and they are punished if convicted.
6. PURPOSE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
The main purpose of criminal justice is to punish the
wrongdoer. He is punished by the State. The
question arises, what is the purpose of punishment or
in other words, what is the end of criminal justice.
From very ancient times, a number of theories have
been given concerning the purpose of punishment.
Deterrent Theory
Preventive Theory
Reformative Theory
Retributive theory
Theory of Compensation
7. CONTD
Based on the above view of theories is that the end
of criminal justice is to protect and add to the
welfare of the State and society.
The view of the other class of theories is that the
purpose of punishment is retribution.
The offender must be made to suffer for the wrong
committed by him.
8. THE DETELRRENT THEORY OF PUNISHMENT
Punishment is primarily deterrent when its object is
to show the ineffectiveness of crime, and thereby teach a
lesson to others. Deterrence acts on the motives of the
offenders, whether actual or possible. Offences are
committed, in most cases, as a result of a conflict between
the so called interests of the wrong-doer and those of
society at large.
The object of punishment, according to this theory, is to
show that, in the final analysis, crime is never profitable to
the offender, and as
9. THE PREVENTIVE THEORY OF PUNISHMENT
If the deterrent theory tries to put an end to the crime
by causing fear of the punishment in the mind of the
possible crime-doer,
the preventive theory aims at preventing crime by
disabling the criminal, for example, by inflicting the
death penalty on the criminal, or by confining him in
prison, or by suspending his driving license, as the
case may be.
10. In the ultimate analysis, the preventive mode of punishment
works in three ways, viza)
a) by inspiring all prospective wrong-doers with the fear of
punishment;
b) by disabling the wrong-doer from immediately committing
any crime; and
c) by transforming the offender, by a process of reformation
and reskilling, so that he would not commit crime again.
11. THE REFORMATIVE THEORY OF PUNISHMENT
According to the reformative theory, a crime is committed
as a result of the conflict between the character and the
motive of the criminal. One may commit a crime either
because the inducement of the motive is stronger or
because the restraint imposed by character is weaker.
This theory would consider punishment to be curative or to
perform the function of a medicine. According to this
theory, crime is like a disease.
This theory maintains that "you cannot cure by killing".
The exponents of the reformative theory believe that a
wrong-doers stay in prison should serve to re-educate him
and to re-shape his personality in a new mould.
12. Justice Krishna lyer opens his judgment in Rakesh
Kaushik Vs Superintendent, Central Jail (1980 Supp.
S.C.C. 183) with the following poignant question : "Is a
prison term in Tihar Jail a post-graduate course in
crime ?"
In Sunil Batra (II) V. Delhi Administration (1980 3
S.C.C. 488), The judgment deals at length with the
shocking conditions prevailing in Indian prisons and
suggests a series of prison reforms.
13. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 has been passed to
reforms the JUVENILE OFFENDER.
About this Act, the Supreme Court observed in Rattan
Lal v. State of Punjab that the Act is a milestone in the
progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field
of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the
doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform
the individual offender than to punish him.
In Musa Khan v. State of Maharashtra,
The Supreme Court observed that this Act is a piece
of social legislation which is meant to reform juvenile
offenders with a view to prevent them from becoming
criminals by providing an educative and reformative
treatment to them by the Government.
14. THE RETRIBUTIVE THEORY OF PUNISHMENT
It was seen that punishment by the State is a substitute for
private revenge. In all healthy communities, any crime or
injustice disturbances up the retributive anger of the
people at large.
Retribution basically means that the wrongdoer pays for
his wrongdoing, since a person who is wronged would like
to revenge himself, the State considers it necessary to
inflict some pain or injury on the wrongdoer in order to
otherwise prevent private vengeance.
15. THE COMPENSATION THEORY OF
PUNISHMENT
According to this theory, the object of punishment must not be
merely to prevent further crimes, but also to compensate the
victim of the crime. This theory further believes that the main-
spring of criminality is great and if the offender is made to return
the ill-gotten benefits of the crime, the spring of criminality would
be dried up.
Though there is considerable truth is this theory, it must be
pointed out that this theory tends to over-simply the motives of a
crime. The motive of a crime is not always economic.
Offences against the state, against justice, against-religion,
against marriage, and even against persons, may not always be
actuated by economic motives.
In such cases, the theory of compensation may be neither
workable nor effective.
16. PUNISHMENT SEC 53-75
Punishment.- The punishments to which offenders are
liable under the provisions of this Code are-
First.- Death; Sec 121, 132, 194, 302, 305, 396, 307
Secondly.- Imprisonment – a. Rigorous ( 194, 449, 168,
169, 172-174 175-176 & 187 178-180, 188 223, 225A
228, 291, 341, 500, 501, 502, 509, 510n& Simple ( Max
14yrs Minimum 24 hours Sec 510 397 398
Fifthly.- Forfeiture of property – 61&62 126,127 and 169
Sixthly.- Fine. 137, 154, 155, 171G-H-I 278, 283, 290,
290A
17. 54. Commutation of sentence of death.- In every case
in which sentence of death shall have been passed, may,
without the consent of the offender, commute the
punishment for any other punishment provided by this
Code.
55. Commutation of sentence of imprisonment for
life.- In every case in which sentence of imprisonment for
life shall have been passed may, without the consent of
the offender, commute the punishment for imprisonment
of either description for a term not exceeding fourteen
years.
18. KINDS OF PUNISHMENT29
The following kinds of punishment are discussed
below, namely,-
1. Capital punishment
2. Corporal punishment
3. Imprisonment
4. Solitary confinement
5. Indeterminate sentence
6. Fine.
19. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
In the history of punishments, capital punishment has always
occupied a very important place. In ancient times, and even in
the middle ages, sentencing offenders to death was a very
common kind of punishment.
Even what might be considered as minor offences in modern
criminal law, attracted the death penalty in those days.
In England, there was a time when there were as many as 200
felonies for which the punishment was death. Even the offence
of theft of property would attract the penalty of death.
Till the middle of the seventeenth century in England, even the
penalty for the offence of forgery was death.
Then there arose a movement in the 18th century, which
raised its voice of protest against the in human of punishment.
20. CASE ANALYSIS
There have been many arguments for and against
this kind of punishment.
State of U.P. V. M.K. Anthony, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 48
In a case before the Supreme Court, them accused
killed his bedridden wife, as he could not provide
the money for her operation. He also killed his two
children, as there would be no one to care for them
after the mother. However, the crime was
committed out of poverty, and not for just,
vengeance or gain.
In the circumstances, the Supreme Court held that
life imprisonment, and not capita punishment, was
the appropriate sentence
21. IN BACHAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB (1980 2 S.C.C.
684),
The Supreme Court was faced with the question whether the
death penalty impossible for some offences under the Indian Penal
Code is constitutionally valid the Supreme Court ruled that the death
penalty is constitutionally valid, and does not constitute an
"unreasonable, cruel or unusual punishment."
The majority pointed out that the death penalty is to be imposed only
for "special reasons" and only in the rarest of rare cases. However,
such provisions cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21
of the Constitution.
It was also observed that the fact that India had accepted the
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights does not affect the
constitutional validity of the death sentence. The voice of disagreement
came from justice Bhagwati, who delivered a separate decision to the
effect that section 302 of the Code is void, in so far as it provides for
imposition of a death penalty (for murder) as an alternative to life
imprisonment.
22. VASANT PAWAR V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(1980 SUPP. S.C.C. 194)
The Supreme Court has taken a stern view of recent
"dowry deaths" and "wife-burning tragedies", and has
refused to commute sentences imposed on such
"murders" by lower Courts.
A reference may be made to yet another decision of
the Supreme Court in a wife-burning tragedy which
took place in Delhi (State V. Laxman Kumar &
others),
23. Corporal punishment includes modulation, flogging (or
beating) and torture. This was a very common kind of
punishment in the ancient and the medieval times. In
ancient Iran and ancient India, and even in times of the
Mughal Rulers and the Marathas, whipping was commonly
resorted to. Elsewhere also, right up to the Middle Ages,
beating was one of the commonest form of punishment.
The main object f this kind of punishment is deterrence. It
has been long ago realized that this kind of punishment is
not only inhuman, but also ineffective.
24. IMPRISONMENT
Imprisonment, if properly used, may serve all the
three important objects of the punishment. It may
be a deterrent, because it makes an example of the
offender to others.
It may be preventive, because it disables the
offender, at least for some time, from repeating the
offence, and it might, if properly used, give
opportunities for reforming the character of the
offender.
25. SOLITAY CONFINEMENT
Solitary confinement is an aggravated kind of
imprisonment. This kind of punishment exploits fully the
sociable nature of man, and by denying him the society
of his fellow beings, it seeks to inflict pain on him.
Ss. 73 and 74 of the I.P.C. lay down the limits beyond
which solitary confinement cannot be imposed under the
Indian law. Thus, the total period of solitary confinement
cannot exceed three months in any case; nor can it
exceed fourteen days at a time, with intervals of
fourteen days in between (or seven days at a time with
seven days intervals in between, in case the substantive
sentence exceeds three months' imprisonment
26. SEC 73 & 74
73. Solitary confinement.- Whenever any person is convicted
of an offence for which under this Code the Court has power to
sentence him to rigorous imprisonment, the Court may, by its
sentence, order that the offender shall be dept. in solitary
confinement of any portion or portions of the imprisonment to
which he is sentenced, not exceeding three months in the
while, according to the following scale, that is to say
a time not exceeding one month if the term of imprisonment shall not
exceed six months;
a time not exceeding two months if the term of imprisonment shall
exceed six month s and 1[shall not exceed one] year.
A time not exceeding three months if the term of imprisonment shall
exceed one year.
27. Sec 74 Limit of solitary confinement.-
In executing a sentence of solitary
confinement, such confinement shall in no case
exceed fourteen days at a tune, with intervals
between the periods of solitary confinement of nit less
duration then such confinement shall not exceed
seven days in any one month of the while
imprisonment awarded, with intervals between the
periods of solitary confinement of not less duration
than such periods.
28. FINE – SEC 137, 154,155, 156, 171G, H, I 278, 283, 290, 294A
Some criminologists are of the opinion that the
punishment of fine, in addition to serving its deterrent
object, also serves three more purposes.
Firstly, it may help to support the prisoners;
Secondly, it might provide expenses for the prosecution of
the prisoners,
Thirdly, it may be used for compensating the aggrieved
party.
29. 64. Sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine.-
In every case, of an offence punishable with imprisonment
as well as fine, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine,
whether with or without
imprisonment, and in every case of an offence punishable
with fine only , in which the offender is sentenced to a fine,
30. 65. Limit to imprisonment for non-payment of
fine.- 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.
66. 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.
31. 67. Imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when
offence punishable with fine only.- for any term not
exceeding two months when the amount of the shall not
exceed fifty rupees,
for any term not exceeding four months when the amount
shall not exceed one hundred rupees,
for any term not exceeding four months when the amount
shall not exceed one hundred rupees, and for any term not
exceeding six month in any other case.
32. 69. Termination of imprisonment on payment of
proportionate 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 a payment is not less
than proportional to the part of the fine still unpaid, the
imprisonment shall terminate.
33. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
Another kind of imprisonment, which may serve the
reformative purpose to a greater extent, and which
is to-day extensively used in the United States, is
the method of awarding an indeterminate sentence.
In this case, the accused is not sentenced to
imprisonment for any fixed period. The period is left
in determinate at the time of the award, and when
the accused shows improvement, the sentence
may be terminated.