Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 774 (PNJ)

Naurata Singh v. Chandigarh Administration

2003-05-21

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2003
ORDER H.S. Bedi, J. - This petition arises out of the order dated 2.6.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby he affirmed the order dated 27.3.1995 passed by the District Magistrate, Chandigarh, vide which the surety bond of Rs. 50,000/- furnished by the surety-petitioner had been forfeited and the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount in the Government Treasury. 2. This petition had been filed on 26.7.1995, when the learned counsel for the surety-petitioner relied upon the authority reported as Kaku v. State of Haryana, 1995(1) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 479 : 1994(3) RCR(Crl.) 617 (P&H) to contend that as per the provisions of Section 3(1)(a) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short, the Act), a prisoner could be called upon to execute a bond, which could not exceed Rs. 20,000/- and on that basis, notice was issued to the Standing Counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh and proceedings regarding the recovery of the said amount were stayed. The case was, thereafter, taken up on various dates, but the same could not be heard for some reason. The case came up for hearing on July 5, 1995 and was adjourned to July 24, 1996, as the petitioners counsel was not present. It was further taken up after several years i.e. on March 5, 2003 when again the petitioners counsel was not present and once again, the case was adjourned for today. Even today, the petitioners counsel is not present and the letter issued to the counsel for the petitioner has been received back un-delivered with the report that Mr. D.D. Verma, Advocate has not been found in the Bar Room. Be that as it may, it is an obligation of the counsel to take care of his case. The matter has been pending for the last several years and there being a stay in favour of the petitioner since 1995, I have thought it fit to proceed with the matter even without the presence of the learned counsel. 3. The facts of the case are that one Mohd. Mohfil son of Mohd. Abdul, who had been confined in the Model Jail, Chandigarh, was released on parole for a period of four weeks vide order dated 1.3.1994 of the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh on the condition of his furnishing a bond to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate. The facts of the case are that one Mohd. Mohfil son of Mohd. Abdul, who had been confined in the Model Jail, Chandigarh, was released on parole for a period of four weeks vide order dated 1.3.1994 of the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh on the condition of his furnishing a bond to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner Naurata Singh son of Bhajan Singh furnished a surety bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the release of the convict and it was undertaken that he would be responsible for his return on the expiry of the period of parole. The convict, however, did not turn up thereafter. Notice for absence of the convict was given to the surety-petitioner under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for 27.4.1994, on which date he appeared in Court and sought time to produce the convict. As he could not do so, the amount of the surety bond was forfeited vide order dated 27.3.1995 made by the District Magistrate. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, Naurata Singh preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. The primary argument raised by his counsel was that he had been condemned un-heard and without notice. This argument was repelled by holding that a notice had been issued to Naurata Singh and a reply had been filed by him and he had sought time to trace the convict and it was only on his inability to do so that the District Magistrate had passed the order dated 27.3.1995. 5. Dis-satisfied with the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, the present petition had been filed on 26.7.1995, in which notice was issued on the basis of the contentions raised with regard to Kakus case (supra). 6. I have gone through the provisions of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act. It has absolutely no reference to the amount of the bond that can be taken from a convict or his surety. In Kakus case (supra), a bond of Rs. two lacs with two sureties in the like amount had been sought for Kakus release on parole. This amount the Court found to be excessive and accordingly directed its reduction by observing that the rules framed under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 provided that a bond exceeding Rs. In Kakus case (supra), a bond of Rs. two lacs with two sureties in the like amount had been sought for Kakus release on parole. This amount the Court found to be excessive and accordingly directed its reduction by observing that the rules framed under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 provided that a bond exceeding Rs. 20,000/- could not be sought from a prisoner or a surety. The Punjab Rules, to my mind, would not be applicable to a Haryana matter. There is no such impediment or embargo in the Act. As a matter of fact, Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with forfeiture of bonds and the levy of penalty on account of non-compliance with the said provisions of the Code also provides (under sub-section (3) thereof) that the Court can remit any portion of the penalty, but no such discretion has been given with regard to the remission of the amount of the bond. This petition is accordingly dismissed. 7. Since nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the parties, a copy of the judgment be sent to them under registered cover by the office free of cost. Petition dismissed.