AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 368 wordsD.R. Deshmukh, J.—Heard on I.A. 4206/2004 and I.A. No. 185/2005 for taking documents on record.
Considered
Allowed
Also heard on I.A. Nos. 4152/2003, 1836/2005, 3819/2005 and 652/ 2006 for urgent hearing of the case.
The applications are considered and the matter is taken up on board.
This appeal is finally heard at the stage of admission.
Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant stood surety for Rs. 50,000/- for one Jaswinder Singh, as accused in Special Criminal Case Number-06/1994 u/s 120(B) of IPC. Due to non-appearance of Jaswinder Singh on the date of hearing, the surety bond was forfeited and the Appellant was noticed to show cause. Upon failure of the Appellant to give satisfactory explanation or to keep the accused present, entire amount of Rs. 50,000/- was ordered to be forfeited by the impugned order dated 11-06-2002.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Jaswinder Singh later on appeared in Special Criminal Case Number-06/1994 after being granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 25-06-2002 of this Court and was ultimately acquitted vide judgment dated 17-11-2004 delivered by Special Judge, Sarguja at Ambikapur in Special Criminal Case Number-06/1994. In view of the above, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that order of forfeiture of the entire amount of Rs. 50,000/- is harsh and therefore prayed that the impugned order be suitably modified. On the other hand, Shri Sandeep Dubey, Govt. Advocate opposed the prayer.
Having considered rival submissions, I have perused the certified copy of the impugned order dated 11-06-2002 passed by the learned trial Judge. It appears that the Appellant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- out of the surety amount of Rs. 50,000/- in the Court.
In view of the fact that Jaswinder Singh had, later appeared before the trial Court, faced the trial and was ultimately acquitted vide judgment dated 17-11-2004, interest of justice would be served, if diseretion under Sub-section (3) of Section 446 of Code of Criminal Procedure is exercised and the impugned order is modified to the extent that only an amount of Rs. 15,000/- out of the surety bond furnished by the Appellant shall stand forfeited.
Ordered accordingly. Appeal allowed.