Sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine
Section 64 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with 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 The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
[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.
Section 64, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 8 Amount of fine, liability in default of payment of fine, etc Close, with changes 79%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 11
- Assam Police Act s. 104
- Assam Police Act, 2007 (Single Document) s. 105
- Assam Witch Hunting (Prohibition, Prevention and Protection) Act s. 18
- Assam Witch Hunting (Prohibition, Prevention and Protection) Act, 2015 (Single Document) s. 18
- Bihar Police Act s. 15 Technology and the assistance Services
- Himachal Pradesh Police Act s. 127 Recovery of penalties and fines
- Meghalaya Police Act, 2010 (Act No. 7 of 2011) s. 115 Recovery of penalties and fines imposed by Magistrates
- Mizoram Police Act s. 144 Summary disposal of certain cases
- Nagaland Interpretation and General Clauses Act 1978 s. 41
- Sikkim Police Act s. 174
- Tripura Police Act s. 95
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Kumaran vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When compensation is ordered under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the deeming fiction contained in Section 431 Cr.P.C. extends the application of Section 421(1) and Section 70 IPC to such compensation. Consequently, compensation remains recoverable even after the accused has undergone the default imprisonment sentence prescribed for non-payment, without the necessity for recording special reasons in writing. This is because the proviso to Section 421(1), as amended following the 41st Law Commission Report, creates a disjunctive category for compensation orders that operates independently of the requirement for special reasons.
On this section: Provides court's competence to impose default imprisonment for non-payment of fine; extended by deeming fiction to compensation
-
K. A. Abbas H. S. A vs Sabu Joseph
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, when read in conjunction with Sections 431 and 421 of Cr.P.C. and Section 64 of IPC, empowers courts to impose a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation ordered to be paid to a victim. Such default sentence is an enforcement mechanism, not a substantive sentence, and its imposition is both the power and duty of courts considering the nature of offence, circumstances of commission, the offender's capacity to pay, and the principle that the object of compensation is to provide total justice to victims. The case law establishing this position, particularly Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh (1989) and its subsequent reiterations, represents settled law that has been followed by the Supreme Court for over two decades and cannot be overruled by isolated contrary decisions at High Court level.
On this section: Empowers courts to provide for sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. Read in conjunction with Section 357(3) and 431 to support default sentences for compensation.
-
Sabu Joseph vs K. A. Abbas
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A court exercising jurisdiction under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code can impose a default sentence of imprisonment in case of non-payment of the compensation amount ordered, as such compensation is recoverable as if it were a fine under Section 431 Cr.P.C read with Section 421 and Section 64 IPC, and such default sentence serves as a mode of enforcement to ensure accused pays compensation to the victim. The legislative intention reflected in Sections 357(3), 421, 431 and 64 read together clearly empowers courts to impose default sentences for non-payment of compensation awarded under Section 357(3).
On this section: Indian Penal Code section empowering courts to provide for sentence of imprisonment on default of payment of fine. Court held this applies to compensation as well when read with Sections 357(3), 421 and 431.
-
R. Mohan vs A. K. Vijaya Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The court possesses the inherent power and authority under Sections 357(3), 421, and 431 of the Criminal Procedure Code, read in conjunction with Section 64 of the Indian Penal Code, to impose a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation ordered by it. This power is not ancillary to other sentences but stands independently and is essential to the efficacy of compensation orders. Without such enforcement mechanism, compensation orders would be rendered illusory and the purpose of providing relief to crime victims would be frustrated. Therefore, a sentence in default of payment of compensation is legally valid and enforceable.
On this section: Sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine; Court relied on this to establish principle of default sentences, applicable by analogy to compensation
-
A. K. Vijaya Kumar vs R. Mohan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a court imposes a sentence of imprisonment without a fine component under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it possesses the legal power and authority to award an alternative sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of the compensation amount ordered by that court, because (1) such power is necessary to give effect to Section 357(3)'s objective of ensuring victim compensation is not rendered illusory; (2) the absence of an enforcement mechanism with deterrent effect would frustrate the entire purpose of the compensation order; (3) Section 431 of CrPC puts compensation awards on par with fines for recovery purposes, and since Section 64 of IPC permits default imprisonment for non-payment of fines, the same principle applies to compensation; (4) the court may impose a reasonable compensation amount and provide reasonable time for payment, enforcing the order by imposing a default sentence, thereby ensuring both victim relief and proportionate deterrence against the offender.
On this section: Provides for sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine in cases where both imprisonment and fine are imposable or only fine is imposable. Court examined whether this section's logic could be applied to compensation orders, concluding that since Section 431 puts compensation on par with fine for recovery, Section 64 logic extends to compensation.
-
Vijayan vs Sadanandan K.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While awarding compensation under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, courts are within their jurisdiction to include a default sentence of imprisonment in case of non-payment of compensation. The combined reading of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., Section 431 Cr.P.C. (which makes money other than fine recoverable as if it were a fine when recovery method is not otherwise expressly provided), and Section 64 IPC (which empowers courts to direct that in default of payment of fine, offender shall suffer imprisonment) authorizes courts to impose default sentences for non-payment of compensation awarded under Section 357(3).
On this section: Specifically addresses sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine; empowers courts to direct that in default of payment of fine, offender shall suffer imprisonment; applied to authorize default sentences for compensation via Section 431 reading
-
Sanjeev Moses Davidson vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Indigence without intervening dishonesty or bad faith in liquidating the liability fastened by the District Consumer Forum or State/National Commission is no ground to incarcerate a person. Before committing a person to prison for non-payment of fines imposed by a consumer forum, the court must conduct an enquiry to determine whether the person has the means to pay but is willfully avoiding discharge of liability. Sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of fines cannot run concurrently with substantive sentences or with each other, as established by consistent judicial precedent spanning nearly a century. The legal fiction created by Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act applies only for execution purposes and must be read in conjunction with principles of civil imprisonment for debt, which require proof of willful default and financial capacity before imprisonment.
On this section: Provides for imprisonment in default of payment of fine; creates a bar against making such sentences concurrent
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 64
What have the courts held on Section 64 of the Indian Penal Code?
Kumaran vs State of Kerala (05 May 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Provides court's competence to impose default imprisonment for non-payment of fine; extended by deeming fiction to compensation. Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2017.
How do I find court cases under Section 64 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 64, section 64 IPC, section 64 of the Indian Penal Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 7 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Kumaran vs State of Kerala (05 May 2017).
What should I read with Section 64 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
11 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 8 (Amount of fine, liability in default of payment of fine, etc), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 64 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 64 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 64, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.