Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 372 (AP)

Shaik Pakeer Ahammad v. State Of A. P.

2006-03-16

P.S.NARAYANA

body2006
( 1 ) CRL. P No. 1216/2001 is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as "code" for the purpose of convenience, to quash proceedings in C. C. No. 47/2001 on the file of Judicial First Class magistrate-cum-Special Mobile Court, Guntur by the petitioners/a-1 to A-4. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. The offences are Sections 498-A and 494 Indian penal Code, hereinafter referred to as "ipc". Crl. R. C. No. 201/2001 is filed by the respondent/husband aggrieved by an order made in M. C. No. 23/99 on the file of VII additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, dated 9-1-2001. The 1st respondent in the said criminal revision case is the wife. The learned Magistrate in the said Maintenance case recorded the evidence of P. W. 1-wife, p. W. 2 and P. W. 3 and also R. W. 1, marked exs. P-1, Exs. R-1 to R-8 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the wife is entitled for a monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- from the date of petition i. e. , 22-6-1999. Aggrieved by the same, the criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code. ( 2 ) SRI Koneti Raja Reddy, the learned counsel representing the petitioners in criminal petition and also the petitioner in the criminal revision case made the following submissions. The learned Counsel would maintain that the wife cannot further proceed with the prosecution of the offences under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC with which the petitioners in the criminal petition had been charged for the reason that the proceedings had been initiated after a long lapse of time. In fact it is abuse of process of Court as well as process of law for the reason that the wife had been making repeated complaints and in fact at a particular point of time there was some settlement between the parties and again she thought of initiating yet another action and the same is hopelessly barred by limitation. Even otherwise, the learned counsel would contend that the allegations made by the wife are baseless and totally unsustainable. The learned Counsel also explained that inasmuch as a complaint relating to the offence of Bigamy had been made, the parties being Muslims governed by the Muslim Personal Law, the provisions of Section 494 IPC are not attracted at all. Even otherwise, the learned counsel would contend that the allegations made by the wife are baseless and totally unsustainable. The learned Counsel also explained that inasmuch as a complaint relating to the offence of Bigamy had been made, the parties being Muslims governed by the Muslim Personal Law, the provisions of Section 494 IPC are not attracted at all. Even otherwise, the language of Section 494 IPC itself would show that the marriage should be a void marriage. The learned Counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant passage in mohammedan Law by Mulla in this regard. The learned Counsel also would maintain that at any rate the police cannot file the charge-sheet in relation to the offence under section 494 IPC and at the best it can be by means of a complaint by the person aggrieved. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to sections 198 and 198-A of the Code and further had drawn the attention of this Court to Sections 468, 469, 470, 472 and 473 of the Code and would maintain that in any view of the matter, the further proceedings cannot be proceeded with and they are liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel also incidentally had drawn the attention of this Court to the findings recorded in the maintenance Case and would maintain that even granting of maintenance cannot be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 3 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor had taken this Court through the allegations made in the charge-sheet and would maintain that these are all matters to be gone into the appropriate stage and hence the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. ( 4 ) HEARD the Counsel on record. ( 5 ) CRL. R. C. No. 201/2001 is preferred by the husband/respondent in M. C. No. 23/ 99 on the file of VII Additional Munsif magistrate, Guntur under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code and the 1st respondent in the said criminal revision case is the wife/petitioner in the aforesaid maintenance Case. Section 397 of the code deals with Calling for records to exercise powers of revision. Section 397 of the code deals with Calling for records to exercise powers of revision. The opening words of sub-section (1) of the said section 397 read:"the High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. "the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court or the Sessions Judge. In waryam Singh v. Amarnath, AIR 1954 sc 215 and K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788 , it was held that the revisional jurisdiction should not be lightly exercised as it cannot be invoked as a matter of right. Be that as it may, though the ground of talaq was taken and several contentions had been raised before the learned magistrate, the learned Magistrate had recorded the oral evidence of P. W. I to p. W. 3 and R. W. I and also appreciated the documentary evidence Ex. P-1 and Exs. R-1 to R-8 and recorded reasons in detail and also had taken note of the fact that the husband is working as a Secondary Grade teacher and came to the conclusion that fixing the quantum of Rs. 500/- per month towards maintenance from the date of the petition would be just and proper. On a careful analysis of the reasons which had been recorded by the learned Magistrate, who in fact had framed the Points for consideration at Para 9 and proceeded to discuss the matter commencing from paras 10 to 15, this Court is well satisfied that there is no illegality or legal infirmity so as to interfere with the order made in crl. R. C. No. 201/2001. R. C. No. 201/2001. ( 6 ) THE next important aspect is whether the charge-sheet in C. C. No. 47/ 2001 on the file of Judicial First Class magistrate-cum-Special Mobile Court, Guntur is to be quashed for the reasons which had been specified in the criminal petition aforesaid. The petitioners in the criminal petition/a1 to A4 are the husband of the de facto complainant and the relatives. The police had laid the charge-sheet under sections 498-A and 494 IPC. The brief facts of the prosecution episode are as hereunder: a-1, the husband, married Shaik Peda nagulubee, the de facto complainant, on 16-6-1995 at Tadikonda village and the marriage was solemnized by one Pashee imam of Bismilla Majid and after marriage the complainant joined A-l at Mutluru village and the marriage was consummated and at the time of marriage a dowry of rs. 40,000/- was given apart from a gold ring and a gold chain to A-l. It is also stated that the complainant was given 18 1/2 tulas of gold and house articles. The 1st petitioner/husband in the criminal petition and the complainant lived happily for about three months and A-1 secured job as a Secondary Grade Teacher at kothappalli village of Rompicherla Mandal. The complainant s parents paid a sum of rs. 20,000/- to secure the job and another sum of Rs. 20,000/- to purchase his scooter. It is also stated that after A-l got the job the petitioners/accused felt that the property brought by the complainant was not sufficient and started harassing her. Thus the complainant filed a complaint before the nagarampalem Lando Police Station which was registered as Cr. No. 51/96 under Section 498-A IPC. It is stated that during the course of investigation of the crime, a compromise was arrived at, at the intervention of elders and the 1st petitioner/ a-1/husband agreed to live with the L. W. I/ complainant/wife separately. Thereafter the complainant/wife and the 1st petitioner/a-1 husband started living at Old Guntur for about l 1/2 years. It is stated that the 1st petitioner/a-1 was coming to the house once in 10 days or 15 days and the complainant/ wife questioned the conduct of the 1st petitioner/a-1 and asked him to take her to his working place. Then it was revealed that the 1st petitioner/a-1 had married a second wife and that was the reason why he stopped coming to the complainant/wife. Then it was revealed that the 1st petitioner/a-1 had married a second wife and that was the reason why he stopped coming to the complainant/wife. Again the complainant/wife gave a complaint on 5-2-2001 which was registered as cr. No. 13/2001 under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC of Nagarampalem Lando Police station. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners and the same is pending on the file of Judicial First class Magistrate-cum-Special Mobile Court, guntur. This appears to be the brief factual matrix alleged prosecution episode. ( 7 ) AS can be seen from the allegations, the fact that at a particular point of time, in fact a settlement was arrived at and subsequent thereto there was reunion of the marital tie and again there was desertion. These are all almost admitted facts. It is also not in serious controversy that the parties are Muslims governed by the Mohammedan Personal Law. Section 498-A IPC reads as hereunder: husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subject such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, cruelty means (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive, the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman;or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is on account or failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Section 494 IPC reads as hereunder: marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife:whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage, is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Exception:this section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge. In the aforesaid provision, the words ". . . in which such marriage, is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife. . . " would assume some importance. ( 8 ) TAKING cognizance of a case beyond the period of limitation without there being a request for extension of time and without application of mind of the Court in relation thereto no doubt would be without jurisdiction. The relevant provisions of the code may be looked into in this context. Section 468 of the Code dealing with Bar to take cognizance after the lapse of period of limitation reads as hereunder: (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be, (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most sever punishment. (3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most sever punishment. Section 469 of the Code reads as hereunder: commencement of the period of limitation: (1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offender, shall commence, (a) on the date of the offence;or (3) Where notice of prosecution for an offence has been given, or where, under any law for the time being in force, the previous consent, or sanction of the government or any other authority is required for the institution of any prosecution for an offence, then, in computing the period of limitation, the period of such notice or, as the case may be, the time required for obtaining such consent of sanction shall be excluded. (4) In computing the period of limitation, the time during which the offender, (a) has been absent from India or from any territory outside India which is under the administration of the Central government, or (b) has avoided arrest by absconding or concealling himself, shall be excluded. Section 472 of the Code reads as hereunder: continuing offence:in the case of continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation shall being to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues. Under Section 473 of the Code dealing with extension of period of limitation in certain cases reads as hereunder:"notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the Court that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice. Section 190 of the Code dealing with cognizance of offences by Magistrate reads: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence, (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information receiving from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try. Section 198 of the Code dealing with prosecution for offences against marriage, reads: (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter 20 of the indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence:provided that (a) Where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the court, make a complaint on his or her behalf; (b) Where such person is the husband and he is serving in any of the Armed forces of the Union under conditions which are certified by his Commanding officer as precluding him from obtaining leave of absence to enable him to make a complaint in person, some other person authorized by the husband in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4) may make a complaint on his behalf; (c) Where the person aggrieved by an offence punishable under Section 494 or 495 Indian Penal Code is the wife, complaint may be made on her behalf by her father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter or by her father s or mother s brother or sister or, with the leave of the court, by any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), no person other than the husband of the woman shall be deemed to be aggrieved by any offence, punishable under Section 497 or section 498 of the said Code: provided that in the absence of the husband, some person who had care of the woman on his behalf at the time when such offence was committed may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his behalf. (3) When in any case falling under Clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the complaint is sought to be made on behalf of a person under the age of eighteen years or of a lunatic by a person who has not been appointed or declared by a competent authority to be the guardian of the person of the minor or lunatic, and the Court is satisfied that there is a guardian so appointed or declared, the Court shall, before granting the application for leave, cause notice to be given to such guardian and give him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) The authorization referred to in Clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), shall be in writing, shall be signed or otherwise attested by the husband, shall contain a statement to the effect that he has been informed of the allegations upon which the complaint is to be founded, shall be countersigned by his Commanding officer and shall be accompanied by a certificate signed by the officer to the effect that leave of absence for the purpose of making a complaint in person cannot for the time being be granted to the husband. (5) Any document purporting to be such an authorization and complying with the provisions of sub-section (4), and any document purporting to be a certificate required by that sub-section shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to be genuine and shall be received in evidence. (6) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal code (45 of 1860), where such offence consists of sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife being under fifteen years of age, if more than one year has elapsed from the date of the commission of the offence. (7) The provisions of this section apply to the abatement of, or attempt to commit, an offence as they apply to the offence. (7) The provisions of this section apply to the abatement of, or attempt to commit, an offence as they apply to the offence. Section 198 (l) (c) of the Code is relevant for the present purpose. Section 2 (d) of the code defines complaint as: "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but it does not include a police report. ( 9 ) IN Mahender v. State, 1988 crl. L. J. 544, it was held that a complaint under Section 198 of the Code does not include police report. The complaint to be maintained for an offence of Bigamy by a person aggrieved had been dealt within banamali v. Emperor, AIR 1943 Pat 212, revanasiddaswamy v. State, 1990 Crl. LJ 1001 (Kar.), Belarani v. Jagannath, AIR 1967 Cal. 203 . ( 10 ) SECTION 494 IPC is made cognizable and non-bailable by A. P. Act 3 of 1992 and 15-2-1982 and shall be tried by a Magistrate of First Class. Section 494 IPC falls under chapter XX and Section 498-A falls under chapter XX-A of IPC. Section 198-A of the Code dealing with Prosecution for offences under Section 498-A IPC reads as hereunder:"no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a police report of facts which constitute such offence or upon a complaint made by the person aggrieved by the offence or by her father, mother, brother, sister or by her father s or mother s brother or, with the leave of the Court, by any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption. " while dealing with Section 198 of the Code and Section 494 IPC, a learned Judge of this Court in D. Vijayalakshmi v. Defendant, Sanjeeva Reddy, 2000 (2) ald (Crl.) 200 = 2000 (2) ALT (Crl.) 136 (AP) at Para 3 observed as hereunder: "coming to the second point, the charge- sheet has been filed as aforesaid by the sub-Inspector of Police, Musheerabad for the alleged offences under Sections 498 (A) and 494 of the IPC. 498-A is cognizable and therefore the police can investigate and lay the charge-sheet ultimately if the investigation discloses the case against the accused of trial. 498-A is cognizable and therefore the police can investigate and lay the charge-sheet ultimately if the investigation discloses the case against the accused of trial. What was non- cognizable offence under Section 494 was made cognizable in view of the State amendment brought to the First Schedule appended to the Criminal Procedure Code. The State amendment having received the assent of the President is valid and would prevail even in the wake of any repugnancy between the State Law and Central Law insofar as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned. The offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is cognizable but it is not cognizable elsewhere in the country. In view of the State amendment the investigating agency is entitled to investigate the offence alleged under Section 494 of the IPC. But that is not the end of the matter. There are certain limitations for the Court to take cognizance. As could be seen from chapter XIV of the Cr. P. C. one such limitation is enjoined under Section 198 of the Cr. P. C. Section 198 of the Cr. P. C. bars the Court from taking cognizance of any offence falling under Chapter XX of the indian Penal Code and relating to institution of marriage with the avowed object of preserving the institution of marriage. This bar enjoined under Section 198 of Cr. P. C. is for the Court but not for the investigating agency. Although the agency is at liberty to register a case and conduct investigation into the offence under Section 494 of the ipc, the Court is precluded from taking cognizance of the said offence in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 198 of the Cr. P. C. It may be reiterated here that bar is for the Court but not for the investigating agency. There has been no amendment to section 198 so as to bring the same in consonance with the State amendment brought to Section 494 of the IPC as has been done in respect of the offence under Section 498-A by incorporating section 198-A of IPC. Section 198 being a legislation of the Parliament would prevail in the event of any inconsistency between the State law and the Central law since both the subjects pertain to Concurrent List. Section 198 being a legislation of the Parliament would prevail in the event of any inconsistency between the State law and the Central law since both the subjects pertain to Concurrent List. The initial cognizance taken by the Court upon the charge-sheet filed by the investigating agency, namely, the Sub- inspector of Police, Musheerabad Police station, itself is bad. That clearly vitiates the entire trial and the eventual conviction by the trial Court of the 1st respondent herein. This point has not been addressed by both the Courts below. Of course, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, the appellate Court has come to a clear conclusion that the offence under section 494 of the IPC has not been made out. In any view of the matter, this revision directed against the acquittal cannot sustain. " ( 11 ) IN the light of the language of section 494 IPC and also Section 198 of the Code and in the light of the Personal law governing the parties, this Court is well satisfied that the prosecution so far as the offence under Section 494 IPC is concerned, is unsustainable and the same is liable to be quashed. As far as the offence under section 498-A IPC is concerned, the bar of limitation had been pointed out. No doubt in all fairness the Counsel for petitioners had drawn the attention of this Court to a decision in Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas, AIR 1999 SC 2071 , wherein the Apex Court while dealing with the offence under section 498-A IPC held that cruelty is a continuing offence and a new starting point of limitation starts on last act of cruelty and where the wife was harassed and / sent out of the matrimonial home, the complaint even if time barred can be entertained if it gives unfair advantage to the accused/husband or results in miscarriage of justice. The Counsel also placed reliance on the decisions in Antony v. State of kerala, AIR 2001 SC 2637 , Jhopri Sao v. State of Bihar, (1980) 28 BLJR 658, Beena alexander v. Alexander Kurain, (1990) 1 klt 342 , Curvel Singh v. Rajinder Singh, (1990) 1 DMC 139 (Pandh ). Reliance also was placed on Thirupandi, In re, 1981 Crl. The Counsel also placed reliance on the decisions in Antony v. State of kerala, AIR 2001 SC 2637 , Jhopri Sao v. State of Bihar, (1980) 28 BLJR 658, Beena alexander v. Alexander Kurain, (1990) 1 klt 342 , Curvel Singh v. Rajinder Singh, (1990) 1 DMC 139 (Pandh ). Reliance also was placed on Thirupandi, In re, 1981 Crl. LJ (NOC) 11, wherein it was held that where the accused was charged with an offence punishable with imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, the cognizance would be barred under clause (c) of section 468 of the Code when the charge- sheet is submitted more than 3 years after the commission of the offence. Submissions at length were made in relation to the bar of limitation under Section 468 of the Code in the context of Section 498-A IPC. The words ". . . . shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years and shall also be liable to fine" in section 498-A IPC would assume some importance. Section 468 (2) (c) of the Code specifies that the period of limitation shall be 3 years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding 3 years. The provision is silent in relation to either "or fine" or in relation to "and fine". Section 468 (2) (a) of the Code specifies 6 months period of limitation if the offence is punishable with fine only. It is pertinent to note that Section 468 (2) (b) and (c) of the Code do not specifically mention the aspects either "or fine" or "and fine" in the offences concerned. In the decisions referred to supra it was no doubt observed that imprisonment in lieu of fine is not contemplated by sections 468 and 469 of the Code and the period of imprisonment in lieu of fine was not taken into account by the Parliament while enacting the said provisions. It was also observed that if the period of imprisonment which may be imposed in lieu of fine can be taken into consideration, then sub-section (2), clause (a) of Section 468 of the Code will become redundant as there would be no offence punishable with fine only. It was also observed that if the period of imprisonment which may be imposed in lieu of fine can be taken into consideration, then sub-section (2), clause (a) of Section 468 of the Code will become redundant as there would be no offence punishable with fine only. Such construction cannot be given to section 468 of the Code and the section to be construed in such a manner which gives effect to all the provisions of the said section. In a slightly different context this question had been dealt with in the decision referred thirupandi, In re, (supra ). ( 12 ) IT is no doubt true that if Section 468 (2) (b) and (c) of the Code if construed strictly adopting the literal interpretation, then several of the offences whereunder fine also is prescribed along with imprisonment may not fall either under Section 468 (2) (b) or (c) of the Code, as the case may be. The Parliament in its wisdom appears to have mentioned fine only in Section 468 (2) (a) of the Code and it specified imprisonment only in both Section 468 (2) (b) and (c) of the code. If the strict or literal interpretation that whenever an offence specifies 3 years "and fine" would not fall under Section 468 (2) (c) of the Code, then the result would be that even offences punishable with lesser period than 3 years and one year wherever "and fine" is specified may not fall either under Section 468 (2) (b) or (c) of the Code, as the case may be. The clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 468 of the Code may have to be read harmoniously while construing the said provision. ( 13 ) CHAPTER m of the IPC 1860 deals with Punishments. The clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 468 of the Code may have to be read harmoniously while construing the said provision. ( 13 ) CHAPTER m of the IPC 1860 deals with Punishments. Section 53 of the EPC aforesaid reads as hereunder: "the punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are, first.-Death secondly:imprisonment for life; thirdly: (Repealed by Act XVII of 1949); fourthly:imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely:- (1) rigorous, that is, with hard labour, (2) simple; fifthly:forfeiture of property; sixthly:fine sections 64 and 66 of IPC dealing with sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine and Description of imprisonment for non-payment of fine read as hereunder: 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 imprisonment or fine, or with fine only. in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, it shall be competent to the Court which sentences such offender to direct by the sentence that, in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a certain term, which imprisonment shall be in excess of any other imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced or to which he may be liable under a commutation of a sentence. Description of imprisonment for nonpayment 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. Section 67 IPC deals with Imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when offence punishable with fine only. Section 68 IPC deals with Imprisonment to terminate on payment of fine. Section 67 IPC deals with Imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when offence punishable with fine only. Section 68 IPC deals with Imprisonment to terminate on payment of fine. Even on a careful analysis of different provisions of Chapter III of IPC dealing with Punishments if a view is taken that when offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term specified in clauses (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 468 of the code and fine imposed does not fall under the said provisions for the reason that "and fine" had not been dealt with by the said provisions, this may lead to absurdity especially in the light of Section 468 (2) (a) of the Code where the period of limitation in relation to offence punishable with fine only had been dealt with. It is no doubt true that normally a provision to be interpreted as it stands and it is not for the Courts to legislate or to introduce or to read what is not specifically specified by a particular statutory provision. However, in the light of the views expressed by different High Courts referred to supra and also taking into consideration the provisions of the IPC referred to supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is the only possible interpretation that can be given that, for offences where the period of imprisonment as specified in clauses (b) and (c) of subsection (2) of Section 468 of the Code fall within the period of imprisonment and though and fine had been specified, the said provisions would be attracted. It is needless to say that if in an offence "or fine" is specified inasmuch as the same would be alternative, the said provisions would be attracted. However, inasmuch as there are several offences wherein apart from imprisonment, imposition of fine also is provided for, it may be appropriate if the parliament further clarifies the Legislative intent by suitably amending the provision, if need be. This Court need not express any further opinion relating to this aspect. ( 14 ) COMING to the present case, in the light of the facts and circumstances, inasmuch as at a particular point of time a settlement was arrived at and after a long lapse of time, evidently the complainant/wife being aggrieved of the second marriage of the 1st petitioner/a-1/husband might have thought of initiating this action again. ( 14 ) COMING to the present case, in the light of the facts and circumstances, inasmuch as at a particular point of time a settlement was arrived at and after a long lapse of time, evidently the complainant/wife being aggrieved of the second marriage of the 1st petitioner/a-1/husband might have thought of initiating this action again. In the light of the allegations made in the charge- sheet, this Court is satisfied that these allegations are being made only with a view to set the Law into motion and absolutely there are no justifiable grounds to further proceed with prosecution of the petitioners even under Section 498-A IPC as well since there are no bona fides on the part of the 1 st respondent/complainant/wife. ( 15 ) IN the result, criminal revision case is hereby dismissed. The proceedings in C. C. No. 47/2001 on the file of Judicial First Class magistrate-cum-Special Mobile Court, Guntur are hereby quashed and the criminal petition is accordingly hereby allowed.