Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 933 (PNJ)

Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-07-18

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - The conspectus of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant appeal and emanating from the record, is that, originally, a criminal case was registered against the main accused and son of appellant Harbhajan Singh, by means of FIR No.43 dated 5.9.2009, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 489-A to D read with Section 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Dhilwan, District Kapurthala. 2. Sequelly, the appellant stood surety and furnished the surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- for the release of his own son Paramjit Singh (accused). On 12.3.2012, the main accused did not appear in the Court, so, his bail and surety bonds were forfeited. The proceedings under section 446 Cr.PC were initiated against the appellant. Although he has projected a reasonable explanation of illness of absence of his own son Paramjit Singh, but the trial Judge has forfeited the bonds and a penalty of entire amount of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed on the appellant as well as on his son, vide a very brief impugned order dated 20.4.2012, which, in substance, is as under:- “Heard. Accused Paramjit Singh absented from the court on 12.03.2012 and today he has been produced by the Jail Authorities and he has been taken into custody in the main trial. So, keeping in view of the submissions made by accused and his surety, a penalty of Rs.20,000/- each is imposed upon accused Paramjit Singh and his surety Harbhajan Singh. Accused and surety requested for an adjournment for making the payment. Adjourned to 10.05.2012 with the main trial for payment.” 3. The appellant did not feel satisfied and preferred the present appeal to challenge the indicated impugned order. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant appeal deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 5. The appellant did not feel satisfied and preferred the present appeal to challenge the indicated impugned order. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant appeal deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 5. As is amply clear from the impugned order, that the appellant has projected the ground of absence of his own son, main accused, as his illness, but the same was not considered and the trial Court has, in a very brief order, mechanically imposed the penalty of entire amount of Rs 20,000/- each on the appellant as well as on his son Paramjit Singh, main accused with impunity. The trial Judge ought to have discussed the reasons to negate the plea of the appellant in this respect. The order must be fair, clear, reasonable and in the interest of fair play. Every order must be confined and structured by rational and relevant material on record because the valuable rights of the parties are involved. The same are totally lacking in the present case. The appellant stood surety of his own son compelled by the circumstances without any financial gain. 6. It is not a matter of dispute that Paramjit Singh, main accused, had already surrendered and is now appearing in the trial Court. Not only that, the appellant is an old person, residing separately and suffering from many ailments. He is stated to have no source of income. All these vital facts were ignored by the trial Court with impunity. Thus, to me, the trial Judge has committed illegality and material procedural irregularity in this relevant connection. 7. Taking into consideration the above-mentioned facts, the penalty imposed on the appellant is very excessive and no motive of any financial gain to have stood surety of his own son, can possibly be attributed to him. Therefore, to my mind, the penalty imposed on the appellant deserves to be reduced and it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served if the amount of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- is reduced to Rs. 5000/- in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant appeal is partly accepted. Therefore, to my mind, the penalty imposed on the appellant deserves to be reduced and it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served if the amount of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- is reduced to Rs. 5000/- in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant appeal is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order of trial Court is modified to the extent that the penalty of Rs 20,000/- imposed on the appellant is hereby reduced to Rs. 5000/-. He is directed to pay the penalty of Rs. 5000/- within a period of three months. ---------0.B.S.0------------