Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1679 (PNJ)

Waryam Ram v. State of Punjab

2008-09-29

SHAM SUNDER

body2008
JUDGMENT SHAM SUNDER, J 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.09.2006 rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which, it imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/-, upon the surety ( now appellant ). 2. The appellant stood surety for Bhalwan Ram, accused, who was facing trial, in case FIR no. 74 dated 23.05.2003, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act , in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, undertaking to produce him, on the each and every date, failing which to pay the amount of forfeited surety bond. 3. Bhalwan Ram, accused absented from the Court on 12.10.2004. He was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants. His personal bond and the surety bond stood forfeited. Notice under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was served upon the surety, to show cause, as to why, the amount of the forfeited surety bond be not recovered. Ultimately, Bhalwan Ram surrendered in the Court on 06.07.2005 and taken into custody. His case was also finally decided by the trial Court, vide judgment dated 17.09.2007. 4. Waryam Ram, appellant-surety of Bhalwan Singh, despite service of notice under Section 446 Cr.P.C., did not put in appearance. Accordingly, vide the impugned order dated 04.09.2006, penalty, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, was imposed upon him. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by Warryam Ram, appellant. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the trial record, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that the appellant was not duly served. He further submitted that he was not afforded sufficient opportunity, to put forth his version, and lead evidence. He further submitted that the surety (appellant ) was, thus, condemned unheard, and, as such, the order impugned was liable to be set aside. The submission of the Counsel, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. From the perusal of record, it is evident that when the accused absented, from the Court, and his personal bond and surety bond stood forfeited, to the State of Punjab, notice under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was served upon the appellant. Neither the appellant, nor anybody, on his behalf, appeared in the Court, despite due notice. From the perusal of record, it is evident that when the accused absented, from the Court, and his personal bond and surety bond stood forfeited, to the State of Punjab, notice under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was served upon the appellant. Neither the appellant, nor anybody, on his behalf, appeared in the Court, despite due notice. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that no reasonable opportunity, was afforded to the surety, to put forth his version, and lead evidence. It, therefore, could not be said that the surety was condemned unheard. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 8. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the amount of penalty, imposed upon the surety, was excessive as the period of his absence, was only about nine months and he himself surrendered in the Court. He further submitted that this showed his bona-fides. He further submitted that there was no material, on record, to indicate, that the surety, in any way, connived with the accused, so as to facilitate his flee, from the portals of justice. He further submitted that there was no material, on record, to indicate that the surety/appellant was having an idea, that the accused will jump the bail. He further submitted that the amount of penalty be remitted to some extent. The second submission of the Counsel for the appellant, has some force. There is no material, on record. to indicate, that the surety, in any way, connived with the accused, so as to facilitate his flee, from the portals of justice. There is also, no material, on record, to indicate that the surety/appellant was having an idea, that the accused will jump the bail. There is also no material, on record, that the surety conspired with the accused, resulting into the abscondance of the latter thereby stalling the proceedings in the Court. In Mohammed Kunju vs. State of Karnataka 1999(4) RCR( Criminal ), 726 (SC), the Apex Court, remitted the penalty partly scaling it down from Rs.25,000/-to Rs.5,000/-, finding that there was neither any connivance of the surety, in facilitating the abscondance of the accused, from the Court, nor he had any inkling that he will jump the bail and abscond. In Mohammed Kunju vs. State of Karnataka 1999(4) RCR( Criminal ), 726 (SC), the Apex Court, remitted the penalty partly scaling it down from Rs.25,000/-to Rs.5,000/-, finding that there was neither any connivance of the surety, in facilitating the abscondance of the accused, from the Court, nor he had any inkling that he will jump the bail and abscond. Under these circumstances, it is a fit case, in which penalty to some extent, should be reduced. The penalty, thus, deserves to be reduced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. 9. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the appeal is partly accepted. The amount of penalty of Rs.50,000/-imposed upon the surety/appellant, by the trial Court, is reduced to Rs.15,000/-. The trial Court is directed to take necessary steps, in accordance with law, for the recovery of the reduced amount of penalty of Rs.15,000/-, from the surety, if already not recovered. Appeal allowed.