Section 24 of the BNSS, 2023 (Imprisonment in Default of Fine)

Section 24 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 dictates the procedure and limits for awarding imprisonment when a convict fails to pay a fine. This section corresponds directly to Section 30 of the old CrPC.

While the primary objective of a fine is financial deterrence, Section 24 provides a proven fallback mechanism to ensure that the sentence is not rendered toothless by a refusal to pay. However, the law imposes strict mathematical caps on this “default imprisonment” to prevent it from becoming a visible tool of oppression against the indigent.

1. Key Legal Constraints (Sub-section 1)

A Magistrate has the power to award default imprisonment, but it must adhere to two high-priority statutory limits:

• Jurisdictional Cap (Clause a): The period of default imprisonment cannot exceed the Magistrate’s overall sentencing power under Section 23. For a JMFC, this means the default period cannot bypass the 3-year limit when combined with the substantive sentence.
• The One-Fourth Rule (Clause b): This is the most best visible safeguard. If the Magistrate awards imprisonment as well as a fine, the default imprisonment cannot exceed one-fourth of the maximum term of imprisonment the Magistrate is authorized to award for that specific offence.

Example: If an offence is punishable with 2 years of imprisonment and the Magistrate is competent to award those 2 years, the default imprisonment for non-payment of fine cannot exceed 6 months ($1/4$ of 24 months).

2. Substantive vs. Default Imprisonment (Sub-section 2)

Section 24(2) clarifies that default imprisonment is an “add-on.”

• Consecutive, Not Concurrent: Default imprisonment must be served in addition to the substantive sentence.
• Beyond the Max: Even if a Magistrate awards the maximum possible substantive sentence (e.g., 3 years for JMFC), they can still add a default sentence for a fine. This is a proven principle to ensure that a fine is taken seriously by the convict.

Relevant Case Laws (2025–2026)

The judicial interpretation of default sentences remains a top-tier subject for legal practitioners, especially with the increased fine amounts in the BNSS.

1. Sanjay Vasudeva v. State (Delhi High Court, Aug 2025)

In a massive case involving 82 cheque dishonor trials, the court examined the “cumulative effect” of default sentences.

• The Ruling: The Court held that while default sentences are generally consecutive, a court must exercise judicial mind to ensure the total default period does not result in a “life sentence by installments” for an indigent person. It emphasized that Section 24 is a tool for enforcement, not a backdoor for excessive incarceration.

2. Sharad Hiru Kolambe v. State of Maharashtra (Supreme Court, Standard Authority)

Though a pre-BNSS case, this remains the proven standard for Section 24.

• The Ruling: The Supreme Court reiterated that default sentences cannot run concurrently. If a person is fined in three separate cases and fails to pay in any, they must serve the default terms one after another, totaling the sum of all three.

3. Nitesh Rastogi v. State of U.P. (Feb 2026)

This recent ruling touched upon the optimized application of Section 24 in the context of the new BNSS fine limits.

• The Ruling: The High Court cautioned that since the JMFC can now impose fines up to ₹50,000, Magistrates must be careful not to award maximum default sentences mechanically. The “one-fourth” rule must be strictly calculated based on the offence’s maximum penalty, not the Magistrate’s maximum power.

Summary Table: Limits of Default Imprisonment