Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 439 (RAJ)

Anwar Ahmed v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-10

KHEM CHAND SHARMA

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. For the reasons mentioned in the application and in the interest of justice, the application is allowed and the delay of 515 days in filing the appeal is, condoned. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed that since the appellant is lodged in civil jail this appeal be heard and decided at the admission stage. Considering the request of the counsel, to which learned PP. has no objection, I have heard the arguments for final disposal. 3. In short the facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant Anwar Ahmed appeared as surety of one Gopal son of Kishan Lal Meena, resident of Malarana Chaud, PS. Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur in a case registered against him for offence under Section 8/21 NDPS Act. It seems that Gopal absconded during trial of the case. His bail bonds were forfeited and the trial court vide order dated 23.5.2002 directed to initiate proceedings under Section 446 Cr.PC. against accused Gopal as well as against the appellant. As the appellant failed to submit proper reply to the notice issued by the trial court and also failed to deposit the amount of surety bond, the trial court vide order dated 17.5.2003 imposed six months civil imprisonment. Pursuant to the order of trial court the appellant was produced in court and was sent to civil jail on 18.11.2004. Hence, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the instant appeal under Section 449 Cr.PC. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Referring to the report of the Tehsildar, Malarna Dungar dated 24.2.2004 (Annexure-2) learned counsel for the appellant has contended that accused Gopal died in 2002 i.e. two years prior to this report and that being the reason, the appellant could not produce him before the trial court. It is also contended that as the appellant was in jail in some other case, he was not able to furnish his reply. It is then contended that proceedings under Section 446 Cr.PC. against accused Gopal have already been dropped on 17.7.2004. On this strength learned counsel prayed that the proceedings initiated against the appellant may also be dropped. In the alternative, counsel prayed that the period already undergone by the appellant may be taken to be sufficient and he be released from jail. 6. against accused Gopal have already been dropped on 17.7.2004. On this strength learned counsel prayed that the proceedings initiated against the appellant may also be dropped. In the alternative, counsel prayed that the period already undergone by the appellant may be taken to be sufficient and he be released from jail. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances specially the facts that (i) accused Gopal expired in the year 2002, (ii) proceedings under Section 446 Cr.PC. against him have already been dropped and (iii) the appellant is in civil jail for about three months, I feel that ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the order passed by the trial court in proceedings under Section 446 Cr.PC. the period of civil jail is reduced to the period already undergone. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. *******