A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) RULE Mr. M. A. Bukhari A. P. P. waives service of the Rule for the respondent-State in Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 516 of 1983 to 1082 of 1983. ( 2 ) DURING the course of hearing of Criminal Revision Application No. 92 of 1983 Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 85 to 91 of 1983 and Criminal Revision Application No. 432 of 1981 filed by the present petitioner-accused it transpired that there were more than 600 cases against the petitioner-accused on the allegation that while in service as a Police Constable at Dhanera Police Station he came into possession of printed warrant books maintained for the purposes of journey by S. T. bus. On the strength of such warrant a Police Constable and accused in custody and certain other persons could travel by bus up to a destination mentioned in the warrant. When such a warrant is shown to the S. T. bus conductor a person is not required to make payment of S. T. fare charges and the amount of S T. fare charges would be later on recovered by the S. T. from the Police Department. Since the number of warrants so alleged to have been misused ran into hundreds the cases against the accused were required to be separated on account of technical considerations. Therefore as many as more than 600 cases were filed against him. The sentence imposed upon him was for a different period and it ranged from three months to two years. It appears that initi- ally even the trial court did not pass order that the substantive sentence passed indifferent cases should run concurrently. In some of the cases the petitioner-accused preferred appeal and on appeal the learned Sessions Judge Banaskantha at Palanpur slightly reduced the sentence imposed upon the accused and ordered that the substantive sentence imposed upon the accused should run concurrently. Thereafter in the month of March 1983 when the aforesaid group of revision applications came up for hearing before me almost in despair the petitioner-accused submitted that he had nothing to say and he submitted that he was desirous to withdraw the revision applications. A writing to this effect already prepared and kept ready was produced with the help of an officer of the jail who had accompanied with him. This was unusual. Hence I considered it necessary to probe further. A writing to this effect already prepared and kept ready was produced with the help of an officer of the jail who had accompanied with him. This was unusual. Hence I considered it necessary to probe further. On inquiry I found that a total amount of misappropriation in all the 600 and odd cases would come to about Rs. 13 0 The details from the jail authorities were called for. It was found that he was required to undergo substantive sentence up to 29/11/1982 The petitioner remained in jail for a period of about 4 months prior to 29/10/1980 he again remained in jail from December 1980 onwards. the period of substantive sentence of imprisonment required above undergone by him expired on 29/11/1982 Thereafter he was required to remain in jail because he could not pay the amount of fine imposed upon him. ( 3 ) ON further inquiry it was found that the total amount of fine imposed upon him in all the cases came to Rs. 54 410 What an enormous amount for the petitioner-accused who was serving as Class III servant and who became prey to certain circumstances in life? And look at the tragedy. It this amount is not paid (and it was impos- sible for him to make payment of this amount at least in this life he would be required to remain in jail up to 29/10/1992 Thus for an amount of Rs. 13 0 involved in the offences hold prove against the accused he was - required to undergo imprisonment for a period commencing from 29/12/1980 till 29/10/1992 over and above 41/2 months period already undergone by him prior to 29/10/1980 This would mean that he was require to undergo imprisonment for a period of about 12 years and 3 months for offences involving an amount of Rs. 13 0 This is shockingly disproportionate. It appeared to me that while administering formal justice great injustice has been done to the petitioner-accused. Therefore I ordered to take all the remaining cases into suo motu revision and called for the record. I appointed the learned advocate Shri C. K. Takwani to look into all the cases and assist the Court. ( 4 ) MR. Takwani has been good enough to assist the Court and he filed Special Criminal Application No. 651 of 1983 and Criminal Revi- sion Application No. 492 of 1983. I appointed the learned advocate Shri C. K. Takwani to look into all the cases and assist the Court. ( 4 ) MR. Takwani has been good enough to assist the Court and he filed Special Criminal Application No. 651 of 1983 and Criminal Revi- sion Application No. 492 of 1983. In Special Criminal Application he has raised various contentions on the basis of the provisions of Articles 19 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and has prayed that the remaining period of sentence of imprisonment on account of default of payment of fine should be quashed and set aside and the petitioner. accused should be ordered to be released forthwith. In Criminal Revision Application he has prayed that the order passed by the lower courts imposing fine upon the accused in various cases be quashed and set aside ( 5 ) AS stated hereinabove 1 decided to exercise my suo motu powers under sec. 397 read with sec. 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The record and proceedings of the criminal cases the details of which are given hereinbelow in the table have been called for from the lower Court ( 6 ) IN all these cases for the same or similar type of offences the accused had been charged for offences under different sections Some times he had been charged for the offences under sec. 380 414 465 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code sometimes he has been charged only for the offences under sec. 381 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code etc. But in all these cases he has also been sentenced to pay certain amount of fine. The total amount of fine as imposed upon him comes to Rs. 54 410 It he does not pay this amount of fine he will be required to undergo sentence for different periods in default of payment of fine. The period of sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine would not run concurrently. In the facts and circumstances of the case it was shocking to realise that for an offence of theft and/or cheating and forgery in respect of total amount of Rs. 13 0 a person may be ordered to undergo imprisonment for a period of 12 years and more. This would amount to a crushing blow on the life of the petitioner-accused. 13 0 a person may be ordered to undergo imprisonment for a period of 12 years and more. This would amount to a crushing blow on the life of the petitioner-accused. The petitioner-accused has already undergone a substantive period of sentence and has also undergone a period of sentence from 29/11/1982 onwards till today as sentence in default of payment of fine for various offences. Thus for a period of about ten months he has undergone the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. ( 7 ) THUS the total period of sentence of imprisonment undergone by the petitioner-accused comes to about three years. The petitioner was a Class III employee. He hails from a lower economic strata of the society his father is about 75 years old who is a retired First Grade Police Jamadar and he is getting a pension of about Rs. 200. 00 per month. His mother is aged about 70 years. At present only the pension income of his father is the source of livelihood of the family. The petitioner has two children a son aged 5 years and a daughter aged 8 years. The peti- tioners wife is alive and is staying together with the Parents of the petitioner. Thus all these persons are to be maintained from an income of Rs. 200. 00per month received as pension by the petitioners father. True there were in all about 600 cases but as a matter of fact it would be only one offence. Since a number of warrants were misused on account of technical reasons the cases were required to be separated. Only one or two printed books containing warrants for journey might have been stolen by the accused as alleged by the prosecution. Now that he has been-convicted for criminal offences he would be ineligible for any public employment including Government service. This would be almost equivalent to economic death sentence. This factor Should also be taken into consideration while imposing sentence upon him. ( 8 ) THEREFORE having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case it would be proper to quash and set aside the order regard- ing the payment of fine imposed upon him in all the cases. Pine if any to whatever extent paid in any of the cases is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner-accused. ( 8 ) THEREFORE having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case it would be proper to quash and set aside the order regard- ing the payment of fine imposed upon him in all the cases. Pine if any to whatever extent paid in any of the cases is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner-accused. It is stated at the Bar that the petitioner has already undergone the substantive sentence and he is not required to undergo further period of substantive sentence. It that be so he should be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Rule made-absolute in all the cases as aforesaid. ( 9 ) BEFORE parting with the Judgment I want to place on record that Shri C. K. Takwani the learned Counsel appointed by the court has taken much labour in the cases and has done really a-good service by way of legal aid. Similarly I must say that the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Shri M. A. Bukhari has taken a fair attitude and has helped the petitioner-accused who otherwise would have languished in jail for a period of 12 years. The assistance rendered by both the counsels is highly appreciated. Rule made absolute. .