AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
By way of this appeal, the appellant herein has challenged the order passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, Dated 16.04.2021, in proceedings initiated against the appellant under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, vide which, the appellant has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- undertaken by him to be paid for standing surety for one Sunil Kumar, who was an accused in a case registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. As the accused did not appear in the Court, his personal and surety bonds stood forfeited to the State of H.P. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the present appellant as to why the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, i.e. the amount of surety, be not recovered from him. Vide impugned order, learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, while rejecting the contentions raised by the appellant as to why the amount of surety be not recovered from him, has directed that said amount be recovered from the appellant.
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant is a Labourer, who belongs to a BPL family and is a poor person. His wife and children are totally dependent upon him and the appellant has no other source of income, except wages, which he earns by doing labour work. He is not in a position to honour the order passed by learned Trial Court. He submitted that it will be in the interest of justice in case this Court reduces the amount to be paid by the appellant.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, while drawing the attention of the Court to the order passed by learned Special Judge, submitted that at the time when the appellant stood surety for accused Sunil Kumar, he had sworn in an affidavit that he had immovable assets of worth Rs.10.00 Lac and this fact has been taken into consideration by the learned Court below while passing order under challenge, and therefore, the order so passed does not calls for any interference.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order as well as considered the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the parties.
Prima facie, this Court does not find any infirmity with the order passed by learned Court below as admittedly when the appellant stood surety for the accused and thereafter accused did not appear in the Court of law to face the trial, but natural, the appellant has to face the consequences. However, during the course of arguments this fact has gone un-rebutted that the appellant is a poor person belonging to a BPL family, who is earning his livelihood by doing labour works and has no source of income, upon which his entire family is dependent. Accordingly, this Court in exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 446(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is remitting part of the penalty and ordering the modification of the order passed by learned Special Judge, Hamirpur to the effect that it is directed that an amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be recovered from the appellant instead of Rs.1.00 Lac, as ordered by learned Special Judge. The appeal is disposed of subject to said modification in the order impugned, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.