Section 461 of BNSS : Section 461: Warrant for levy of fine.

Explanation using Example

Example 1:

Ravi was convicted of theft and sentenced to pay a fine of ₹10,000 by the local court in Mumbai. However, Ravi failed to pay the fine within the stipulated time. The court then decided to take action to recover the fine.

• The court issued a warrant for the levy of the amount by attaching and selling Ravi's motorcycle, which was his movable property. The motorcycle was seized and auctioned, and the proceeds were used to pay the fine.

Example 2:

Sunita was found guilty of tax evasion and was fined ₹50,000 by the court in Delhi. Sunita did not pay the fine, and the court needed to recover the amount.

• The court issued a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorizing him to realize the amount as arrears of land revenue from Sunita's property. The Collector identified Sunita's agricultural land and movable assets and proceeded to recover the fine amount as per the law relating to the recovery of arrears of land revenue.

Example 3:

Ajay was convicted of assault and fined ₹5,000. The court also ordered that in default of payment, Ajay would be imprisoned for one month. Ajay did not pay the fine and served the one-month imprisonment.

• After Ajay completed his imprisonment, the court considered issuing a warrant for the recovery of the fine. However, the court decided not to issue the warrant as Ajay had already served the imprisonment term, and there were no special reasons to record in writing for further action.

Example 4:

The State Government of Karnataka issued new rules regulating the execution of warrants for the levy of fines. These rules included procedures for the attachment and sale of movable property and the summary determination of claims by third parties regarding the attached property.

• Ramesh was fined ₹20,000 for illegal construction. He did not pay the fine, and the court issued a warrant for the attachment and sale of his car. Ramesh's neighbor, Suresh, claimed that the car belonged to him. The court followed the new state rules to quickly determine the validity of Suresh's claim before proceeding with the sale of the car.