Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 197 (CHH)

Girdharilal v. State of M. P.

2011-06-20

SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2011
ORDER Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. These appeals have been filed against a common order dated 28th of June, 1994 passed in Misc. Judicial Cases (Criminal) No(s) 1/90 & 2/90 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has imposed the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon each appellant after rejection of their plea against the show-cause issued to them on account of default of appearance of accused- Chhattar Singh in Sessions Trial No. 96/88 for whom they stood as sureties. The above Sessions Trial is still pending as the accused has not been arrested till date. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:-- Chhattar Singh is the sole accused in Sessions Trial No. 96/88 of the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. He was prosecuted u/s 302 IPC. The 2 appellants are the sureties of accused- Chhattar Singh in Sessions Trial No. 96/88. They executed surety bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each on 12.9.86. Appellant- Ram Prasad is father of accused-Chhattar Singh and appellant- Girdharilal is real brother of accused- Chhattar Singh. Chhattar Singh participated in proceedings of Sessions Trial till November, 1988. Thereafter he remained absent on many occasions and ultimately on 29.3.89 a warrant of arrest was issued against him and proceedings against sureties (appellants herein) were drawn. Show-cause notices were issued to the appellants in their separate proceedings and replies were filed by them. The appellants took stand that they tried their best to get the accused produced before the Sessions Court, but they failed; the accused was once arrested in connection with preventive case No. 35/92 u/ss 151, 107 & 116(3) Cr.P.C. of the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Durg; On the report of appellant- Girdharilal, he was arrested in that case on 1.4.92 and remained in jail upto 17.4.92, The arrest of the accused was reported by the police to the Sessions Court by memo dated 2.4.92, but during this period he could not be produced before the Sessions Court and ultimately he was released on bail in the said case. The contentions of the appellants were that they had made all efforts for arrest and production of the accused in Sessions Trial No. 96/88, their conduct was bonafide, therefore, no penalty should be imposed against them. The contentions of the appellants were that they had made all efforts for arrest and production of the accused in Sessions Trial No. 96/88, their conduct was bonafide, therefore, no penalty should be imposed against them. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the replies of the appellants, rejected their contentions and held that the appellants were liable for penalty. The Sessions Judge, therefore, imposed the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each (the full amount of surety bonds executed by the appellants) against the appellants and directed for recoveries in accordance with law. 2. Mr. Uttam Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no reasonable ground to impose penalty on the appellants. Appellants were quite vigilant. As soon as the accused met appellant- Girdharilal, he tried to take him to the Court; on denial and quarrel he made a report to the police on which a preventive proceeding was drawn and he was taken into custody, but even after that he could not be produced before the concerned Sessions Court. Therefore the conduct of the appellants as sureties was quite bonafide. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Satish Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the order passed by the Sessions Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Misc. Cases as also Sessions Trial No. 96/88. 5. The appellants are father and real brother of accused-Chhattar Singh. The accused was prosecuted in a case u/s 302 IPC. The appellants executed surety bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each for release of the accused in the said sessions case giving undertaking to produce the accused on all hearings of the trial. The records of the sessions case would show that after releasing on bail on the surety bonds furnished on 12.9.86, the accused continued to appear till the month of November, 1988. Thereafter on many occasions applications for exemption from personal appearance were filed and ultimately when he remained absent without notice, a warrant of arrest was issued against him on 29.3.89 and bail bonds were forfeited and recovery proceedings were drawn. The appellants took the plea that during the period of absconsion, on 1.4.92 the accused came to their house and met with the appellants. The appellants took the plea that during the period of absconsion, on 1.4.92 the accused came to their house and met with the appellants. On account of the sessions case and on many accounts, he started quarrelling with appellant Girdharilal, therefore, Girdharilal lodged a report in police station Jamul, District Durg, and Chhattar Singh was taken into custody in Crime No. 35/92 u/ss 151, 107, 116(3) Cr.P.C. and was sent to District Jail, Durg by the order of Additional District Magistrate, Durg. His above arrest and detention in District Jail, Durg was reported to the Sessions Court by memo dated 1.4.92 which was received by the Sessions Judge on 2.4.92. The memo along with endorsement and receipt signed by the Sessions Judge is part of the records of the Sessions Trial (Page-23). This is also mentioned in the relevant order-sheet of the Sessions Court. After receiving this memo, the Sessions Judge on 2.4.92 itself directed for issuance of production-warrant, but it appears that the said order was not complied and the matter was taken up on 10.6.92 as fixed earlier. On 10.6.92, the Court became vacant and the case was adjourned for 16.7.92. On 10.7.92 again a production-warrant was directed to be issued. This time the warrant in fact was issued. But by that time the accused was released on bail in the above preventive case and a report to this effect was submitted by jail authorities before the Sessions Court vide their memo dated 21.7.92. These documents are also part of the Sessions Court records having their mentions in the relevant order-sheets. 6. On the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that as soon as accused met with his family members (sureties) on 1.4.92 and they tried for his production, a quarrel took place, for which appellant- Girdharilal immediately made a report to the concerned police station, where the warrant of arrest was pending, and the accused was taken into custody which was informed to the Sessions Court, but on account of non-compliance of the order of issuance of production-warrant on the first occasion, he could not be produced before the Sessions Court and ultimately on the second occasion production-warrant was re-ordered, but, by that time he was released on bail in the preventive case and then again absconded. The learned Sessions Judge did not accept all this as the explanation of the appellants to show their bonafides that they tried their best to make appearance of the accused and on the efforts of appellant- Girdharilal the accused was arrested. On perusal of the records of the sessions case as also Misc. Cases it is clear that on the instance and by the help of the appellants, accused- Chhattar Singh was arrested which prove their intention to help the cause of justice and also their bonafides relating to sincere efforts made by them for arrest of accused- Chhattar Singh. I am of the view that explanation given by them supported by the material available in the records of the Sessions Trial was sufficient to discharge them from liability of payment of penalty and in fact no case for imposing penalty against the appellants was made out. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed and the impugned order dated 28th of June, 1994 passed in 2 Misc. Criminal Cases (M.J.Cs. No. 1/90 & 2/90) are set-aside. 8. The records of Sessions Trial No. 96/88 would show that after drawing the proceedings u/s 299 Cr.P.C. the matter was consigned to the record room on 10.9.96. It is observed that it would be better for the concerned Sessions Court to take the file once again on Board and to call for a report on the permanent warrant issued against the accused and to issue fresh warrant of arrest through Superintendent of Police and make sincere efforts to secure presence of the accused so that an accused of a serious offence like 302 IPC may be brought before the Court for appropriate action in accordance with law. The records of the M.J.Cs. No. 1/90 & 2/90 and Sessions Trial No. 96/88 be returned back immediately along with copies of this order in all the cases.