Section 386 Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 409 Corruption Prevention Act (II of 1947), Section 5 (2) Criminal misconduct warrant by a civil servant for imposing criminal misconduct. During the hearing of the judgment of the High Court, the appellant of the accused retained his sentence and reduced the sentence which he already had under the order that the accused would be fined from his property. , The defendant requested explanation of such order with the argument that although the accused was ordered to pay a fine. , But the order before the payment of the fine was silent, and it was ordered that the fine be recovered from the accused's property, but the accused has no property, the correctness of the High Court did not give any directions for detention. Was. It is specifically stated that the penalty for payment of fines will be obtained from fixed or immovable property, or both, e-accused Section 38 38 Cr, CRPC proposed. In the event of default in payment of fines, the penalty can either be attached to the offender's property and recovered from the sale or the amount may be deducted through the execution of the provisions. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and the Implementing Court may issue a warrant to the District Officer (Revenue), and may allow it to realize the amount by execution pursuant to the civil procedure against the immovable and immovable property of the authorized proviso. Is. According to section 6386, the PC has clearly stated that in the case, the offender had to pay the entire sentence or there was no order of imprisonment for payment of the fine,
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
