Dilip B. Bhosale, C.J. - (1.) A Division Bench, while dealing with the instant criminal appeal against the judgment and order of conviction, noticed the language employed in Section 302 IPC and also that the trial court, while convicting the accused and awarding punishment of life imprisonment, did not impose any fine as such, directed the Registrar General to issue a circular to all District Judges in the State as well as to the Director, JTRI vide order dated 17.12.2016. The relevant observations and direction read thus: "In a number of appeals listed before this Court, it was found that life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC are being awarded, without imposing fine, as required under Section 302. Section 302, which is punishment for murder, is quoted herein below "whoever, commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine." It is very surprising that without reading the provision, the punishment are being imposed by the Trial Court and only punishment for life imprisonment are being awarded, though the word is "imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine". Since, the appeal is of the year 1986, the then officer must have been retired. Hence, Registrar General is required to issue general direction in this regard. It appears that even at the JTRI, no proper training are being given in respect of the procedure of trial as well as some practical aspect, which are being faced by the trial courts day-today in civil and criminal trial including the provisions of General Rules (Civil) and General Rules (Criminal). The Registrar General is required to issue circular to all the District Judges of this State as well as to the Director JTRI, to look into the matter and ensure for such directions, guidelines and training. The District and Sessions Judges should also ensure compliance of the provisions in respect of the procedure, as well as for awarding punishment." When the draft circular was placed for approval on the administrative side, an opinion was sought from one of the members of the Administrative Committee (Hon'ble Mr Justice Arun Tandon). Accordingly, opinion was recorded and it was placed before the Administrative Committee in its meeting held on 25 January 2017. The opinion placed before the Committee for its consideration read thus: "I have Noticed the directions issued by the High Court on Judicial side in Criminal Appeal No. 2407 of 1986- Sukhdev v. State. The issue with regard to the provision of imposition of fine along with punishment of death sentence/life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC has been examined by two Division Benches of this Court in the case of Ashfaq Ali and another v. State of U.P., reported in 2008 (60) ACC 922 and in the case of Santosh Kumar Baranwal v. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (70) ACC 59. The Division Bench in the case of Ashfaq Ali (Supra) has held that it is mandatory to impose fine in addition to the substantive sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The Division Bench in the case of Santosh Kumar Baranwal (Supra) has held that such imposition of fine for the offence committed under Section 302 IPC is only directory and the choice of the Court concerned. I, therefore, find that there is a conflict between two Division Benches of the Court in the matter of imposition of fine in addition to the substantive sentence for an offence under Section 302 IPC being directory/mandatory. The matter, therefore, needs to be resolved by a Larger Bench. Till the matter is finally resolved by the Larger Bench, issuance of the circular in terms of the directions issued under the order dated 17.12.2016 needs be kept in abeyance."
(2.) It is against this backdrop that the Administrative Committee resolved to request the Chief Justice to refer the question "whether it is mandatory to impose fine in addition to the substantive sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC", to larger Bench for consideration. Accordingly, this larger Bench has been constituted to record its opinion on the aforesaid question.
(3.) Before we deal with the question, we find it necessary to look into the judgments of this Court in Ashfaq Ali (supra) and Santosh Kumar Baranwal (supra), which have expressed divergent opinions on the question.;