'No warrant can be issued for recovery of fines. Elucidate.

As per section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), where an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court has the authority to issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and of any movable properly belonging to the offender and further can issue a warrant to the Collector of the District authorizing him to realize the amount as arrears of land revenue or movable or immovable property or both of the defaulter. It is possible to invoke the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of CrPC for recalling a warrant also. The Orissa High Court in Hrushikesh Panda v. State of Orissa and Ors. [1997] 89 Comp Cas 613 (Ori) , setting aside a non-bailable warrant of arrest as well as a distress warrant issued against the petitioner in order to realise a fine levied on the company of which he was the Managing Director, held that the fine has been imposed on the company and it is the liability of the company to pay the same. The High Court further held that the liability of the company is distinct from the liability of its managing director. Once it is concluded that the company has its own liability, the realization of fine has to be made from the company. The mode for realisation is provided under section 421 of CrPC. The High Court further held that legal dues of a company could be realized only by attaching the assets of the company and not by putting the managing director or any of the directors in prison. It is to be kept in mind that the company is the offender or the defaulter. The issuances of a non-bailable warrant or distress warrant against the managing director or director to realize the same is not permissible. Dismissing a petition under section 482 of CrPC seeking to recall warrants issued against the petitioner for alleged cheating of the public by accepting and failing to repay deposits, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in S. Shreenivasa Rao alias S.S.Rao v. Inspector of Police [2002] 109 Comp Cas 406 (Mad) held as follows: "Where the petitioner was arraigned as a party to criminal conspiracy and cheating, it was immaterial whether the petitioner was a director of that Company or its group companies in as much as such criminal conspiracy could be hatched even by any person who need not necessarily be a director of the Company or its group of companies as there were materials available to show that the funds of the Company and its group companies were diverted to another Company of which the petitioner was admittedly a director. Therefore, it would not be proper for the Court to lift the corporate veil and to analyse the contentions of the petitioner in a petition under Section 482. " However, the Hon'ble High Court gave liberty to the petitioner to move the Court of additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to recall the warrant invoking section 70(2) of CrPC.