CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Kaur Singh Jeewar vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 20 February 1987 · Citation: (1987) 1 AICLR 296 : (1987) 1 RCR(Criminal) 312

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pritpal Singh, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1987
Ask AI about this case

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

6 paragraphs · 344 words

Pritpal Singh, J.

1.

This revision is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dated December 19, 1986, dismissing appeal against order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, dated August 2, 1986, by which a penalty of Rs. 5000/ was imposed on the petitioner under Section 446, Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.

The petitioner stood surety for the accused Ajaib Singh in a case under Section 9 of the Opium Act. The accused failed to appear on August 26, 1985 which was the date fixed and also on the subsequent dates of hearing and was finally declared as proclaimed offender on January 31, 1986. The petitioner was also summoned by the Court for August 2, 1986 but he did not appear. The Chief Judicial Magistrate therefore, forfeited his surety bound and imposed penalty of Rs. 5000/ upon him.

3.

The impugned order is not sustainable. In the first place it is not disputed that the accused had not absconded but was actually in custody in some other case. The petitioner, therefore, could not be penalised for his nonappearance in the case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. Secondly, the notice issued to the petitioner for August 2, 1986 was admittedly served on him in the evening of August 1, 1986 and so he could not be reasonably expected to put in appearance on the following day at such a short notice. The Chief Judicial Magistrate should have allowed more time to the petitioner to put in appearance. Simply, on the petitioner''s nonappearance on August 2, 1986 a penalty of Rs. 5000/ could not be imposed upon him.

4.

The petitioner moved an application on January 31, 1987 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to inform him that the accused is confined in Central Jail, Patiala. Admittedly, in pursuance of the warrants issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate the accused has now been produced in Court by the jail authorities.

5.

In aforesaid circumstances, this revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the penalty imposed on the petitioner is remitted.