Judgment : Petitioner is accused in S.T.C.No.709 of 1987 on the file of the Special Judicial Second Class Magistrate (Railways), Jolarpet, North Arcot District. 2. The Inspector of Police, R.P.F., Jolarpet, respondent herein, filed a final report under Sec.173(2), Cr.P.C. against petitioner for an alleged offence under Sec. 108 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (Act IX of 1890 - for short ‘the Act’), which was taken on file in the aforesaid summary trial case. .3. Accused, when questioned, voluntarily admitted the offence and consequently, he was found guilty for the offence under Sec. 108 of the Act, convicted thereunder and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25, in default to simple imprisonment for two days. Accused did not pay the fine amount. Consequently, he was sent to prison and had undergone simple imprisonment for two days. 4. Since the fine amount remained unpaid, learned Magistrate initiated proceedings under Sec.421(1), Cr.P.C. for collection of the same. It is at this stage, petitioner had come forward with the present action, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to set aside the order so passed by learned Magistrate. 5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that initiation of proceedings for recovery of fine amount is legally not permissible, when especially petitioner had undergone default sentence of imprisonment, inasmuch as collection of fine amount, in such circumstance would amount to imposition of double punishment, as indicated by salient provisions adumbrated under Art.20(2) of the Constitution of India, and therefore it is that recovery proceedings initiated are liable to be set aside. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however repel such submission. 7. To the submission of learned counsel for petitioner, I am unable to affix my seal of approval, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The sentence of imprisonment, in default of payment of fine, is not punishment for the offence for which the offender had been convicted; but is punishment for his failure to pay the fine imposed on him by way of punishment for the offence. What is indicated by Sub-clause (2) of Art.20 of the Constitution is that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. .8. In the case on hand, there is no question of further prosecution and punishment for the same offence. What is indicated by Sub-clause (2) of Art.20 of the Constitution is that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. .8. In the case on hand, there is no question of further prosecution and punishment for the same offence. The prosecution and punishment in respect of the offence under Sec. 108 of the Act had been resorted to not more than once. At this juncture, Sub-clause (1) of Art.20 of the Constitution may be referred to and it prescribes that no person shall be convicted of any offence except in violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence; nor be subjected to any penalty greater than that which might not have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. .9. Petitioner in this case had been admittedly sentenced to a fine of Rs.25 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two days. Sec.67 of the Indian Penal Code deals with case of imprisonment for non-payment of fine when the offence is punishable with fine only and it is as under: ."67. Imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when offence punishable with fine only.-If the offence be punishable with fine only, 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". .10. The time limit within which such fine amount imposed is recoverable is indicated in Sec.70 of the Indian Penal Code and it runs as follows: ."70. Fine leviable within six years, or during imprisonment. .10. The time limit within which such fine amount imposed is recoverable is indicated in Sec.70 of the Indian Penal Code and it runs as follows: ."70. Fine leviable within six years, or during imprisonment. Death not to discharge property from liability: The fine, or any part thereof which remains unpaid, may be 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". 11. The mode of recovery of the fine is dealt with under Sec.421, Cr.P.C. and it reads as follows: "421. Warrant for levy of fine: (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- .(a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender: (b) 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 the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such a 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 Sec.357. .(2) The State Government may make rules regulating the manner in which warrants under Clause (a) of Sub-sec.(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. .(2) The State Government may make rules regulating the manner in which warrants under Clause (a) of Sub-sec.(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-sec.(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". 12. The undergoing of imprisonment awarded in default of payment of fine does not operate as a discharge or satisfaction of the fine, which may, nevertheless be levied in the manner indicated by Sec.421, Cr.P.C. Where the offender had undergone the whole of the sentence of imprisonment, in default of payment of fine, warrant for the levy or realisation of the fine will not be issued, unless the Court considers it necessary to do so for special reasons to be recorded in writing. On the face of the aforesaid provisions as extracted above, it goes without saying that initiation of proceedings for collection of the fine amount, notwithstanding the fact that the offender had undergone the default sentence will not at all amount to double jeopardy, coming within the ambit of Art.20(2) of the Constitution of India and under the law, as available at present, it is legally permissible to initiate proceedings for the collection of the fine amount and what is to be done, in such circumstances, is that the Court has to record special reasons for doing so. If that is done, there is an end of the chapter. 13. So far as the case on hand is concerned, petitioner did not at all urge that since learned Magistrate did not at all record special reasons, the proceedings initiated by him for collection of the fine amount, has to be set aside. In such circumstances, there is no other go for this Court except to dismiss the present petition. 14. In the result, the petition is dismissed.