2.36 Special provision regarding fine
2.36.1 Bare Act Provision:
33. Special provision regarding fine.―Notwithstanding anything contained in section 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), it shall be lawful for any magistrate of the first class specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf and for any presidency magistrate to pass a sentence of fine exceeding two thousand rupees on any person convicted of an offence which under this Act is punishable with fine exceeding two thousand rupees.
2.36.2 Interpretation
Section 33 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) Act, allows specific magistrates to impose higher fines for offences under the Act, overriding limits in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Despite restrictions in Section 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), a first-class magistrate specially authorized by the State Government can impose a fine higher than two thousand rupees for offences under the AMASR Act, such as those in Section 30 e.g., damaging a protected monument or unauthorized construction, where the Act allows fines exceeding this amount e.g., up to one lakh rupees. This provision strengthens deterrence against heritage-related offences by allowing magistrates to impose higher fines as permitted by the AMASR Act, ensuring that penalties are proportionate to the severity of violations to protect Bharat’s cultural heritage effectively.
The section refers to the obsolete Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, instead of the current Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, creating legal ambiguity that could lead to confusion or challenges in applying the provision in modern courts. This outdated reference risks inconsistent judicial interpretations, undermining the section’s effectiveness in enforcing higher fines. While the section allows fines exceeding two thousand rupees, up to one lakh rupees under Section 30, this amount may be insufficient to deter large-scale violators, such as developers or trafficking networks, given the high value of heritage assets. The relatively modest fine ceiling could weaken the section’s deterrent effect, allowing violations to persist.
Image credit: https://x.com/GemsOfINDOLOGY
Know more about Temple Laws ….
Pingback: AMASRA: 2.57 Section 34. Recovery of amounts due to the Government. – bharatlex-rinkutai.com