Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1585 (PNJ)

Nanak Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-11-19

V.M.JAIN

body2003
JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - This appeal has been filed by Nanak Singh against the order dated 20.8.1981 passed by the trial Judge imposing penalty of Rs. 7000/- in the proceedings under Sections 446 Criminal Procedure Code 2. Nanak Singh-appellant had stood surety for Ranjit Singh-accused in the case State v. Kulwant Singh etc. under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code vide FIR No. 253 of 1987 of Police Station Tanda. Nanak Singh had furnished surety bond in the sum of Rs. 7000/- for accused Ranjit Singh. Accused Ranjit Singh jumped bail on 27.3.1991 and was declared a proclaimed offender. Notice under Section 446 Criminal Procedure Code was served upon the appellant-Nanak Singh on 14.6.1991. Nanak Singh- appellant (surety) sought time to locate the accused and to produce him before the Court and he was granted time till 20.8.1991. On 20.8.1991, Nanak Singh- surety appeared before the trial Court and submitted that he was unable to trace accused-Ranjit Singh and/or to produce him in the Court. Resultantly, the learned trial Court imposed penalty of Rs. 7000/- against Nanak Singh- surety. On the request made by Nanak Singh-surety, he was given one months time to make the payment. This order was passed by the learned trial Court on 20.8.1991. Aggrieved against the same, Nanak Singh-surety has filed the present appeal in this Court. 3. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant. Even on the last date of hearing, no one had come present. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the State and have gone through the record carefully. 5. A perusal of the trial Court record would show that Nanak Singh-appellant had stood surety for accused-Ranjit Singh. The record would further show that on 27.3.1991 all other accused were present. However, accused-Ranjit Singh was absent. Accordingly, non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against him for 18.4.1991. Since accused-Ranjit Singh could not be served with the arrest warrants issued against him, a proclamation under Section 86 Criminal Procedure Code was issued against him vide order dated 7.5.1991 for 14.6.1991. Notice under Section 446 Criminal Procedure Code was also ordered to be issued against Nanak Singh, surety of Ranjit Singh, for the said date. On 14.6.1991, accused- Ranjit Singh did not appear despite service by proclamation. Hence, he was declared a proclaimed offender. Notice under Section 446 Criminal Procedure Code was also ordered to be issued against Nanak Singh, surety of Ranjit Singh, for the said date. On 14.6.1991, accused- Ranjit Singh did not appear despite service by proclamation. Hence, he was declared a proclaimed offender. Nanak Singh had appeared in Court on 14.6.1991 in pursuance of the notice under Section 446 Criminal Procedure Code issued against him, on which date Nanak Singh-surety sought time to produce accused-Ranjit SIngh. However, he failed to produce the accused-Ranjit Singh in the Court on 20.8.1991 in spite of the time sought by him. Under these circumstance the learned trial Judge imposed penalty of Rs. 7000/- upon Nanak Singh, who had stood surety for Ranjit Singh. 6. This order passed by the learned trial Court imposing penalty of Rs. 7000/- upon Nanak Singh, surety of accused-Ranjit Singh, in my opinion, is perfectly justified and no fault can be found with the same, especially when accused-Ranjit Singh failed to appear in the Court and was declared a proclaimed offender. 7. In view of the above, upholding the order dated 20.8.1991, the present appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.