The Supreme Court has refused to hear the demand to increase the amount of fine in criminal cases. A bench headed by Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai said that it cannot give such an order. The petitioner said that the penalty being imposed at this time does not fulfill the purpose for which the provision of fine was kept in the law. The court asked the petitioner to submit a memorandum to the government to change the law.
Petitioner Sanjay Kulshrestha had said that the rupee has been devalued over time, but the fine has not been reviewed for several decades. The fine like 100 or 500 rupees is very minor. This is not according to the seriousness of the crime. The purpose for which the penalty was kept, the minor fine is not fulfilling it.
What was said in the petition:-
- Now the fine does not motivate to stay away from crime. The criminal has no fear while doing the wrong thing
- The fine is also insufficient to pay compensation to the victim. In one case, the rapist of a 6 -year -old girl was imposed an additional fine of only 5000 for compensation.
- The fine is also insufficient as a penalty. Some can avoid 1 month jail by paying 1500 rupees or can avoid 6 months rigorous jail by paying 3000 rupees. Where there is an option of fine in lieu of jail, there is a need to increase the fine amount
The petitioner had said that there have been many amendments in the Motor Vehicle Act and the fine has been increased. There is a fine of Rs 10,000 for driving after drinking alcohol. There is also a huge penalty for not having a pollution certificate. Many traffic rules are fined up to Rs 50,000 for breaking together. This prevents people from violating the law.
It was said in the petition that if the policy-makers want to keep a lighter penalty in some cases, then community service can be added to it. Under this, things like plantation, service in old age homes can be kept, but the fine should be according to the seriousness of the crime.
The petitioner had demanded that the Supreme Court direct the lower courts to start imposing financial penalty in their orders that could stop the person who intends the crime, but the court said that the courts give the same orders which are provided in the law.