Mohinder Singh vs The State of Punjab

Sham Sunder, J.

1.This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.3.2000, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Mansa, vide which it imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- upon Mohinder Singh, appellant (surety).

Mohinder Singh, appellant, stood surety for Gurdeep Singh, accused, in case FIR No. 94 dated 7.12.1995, u/s 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Boha, titled as State v. Ram Sarup and others in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, undertaking to produce him (Gurdeep Singh), on each and every date of hearing, during the course of trial, failing which to pay the amount of forfeited surety bond.

The accused, absented from the Court. Ultimately, he was declared Proclaimed Offender. His personal bond and surety bond, stood forfeited to the Crl. Appeal No. 314-SB of 2000 2 State. Notice was given to Mohinder Singh, surety, to show-cause, as to why, the amount of forfeited surety bond, be not recovered, from him. He was duly served, but did not come present. Ultimately, the aforesaid order, imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-, was passed.

Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed by the appellant.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.

The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the surety, to put forward his version, and explain the circumstances, under which he could not appear in the Court, for the date, he was served, in pursuance of the notice, u/s 446 Cr.P.C., and why he was unable to produce the accused. He further submitted that the surety had no scent that the accused will jump the bail, and abscond. He further submitted that the surety was not in connivance with the accused, so as to facilitate his abscondance, from the trial. He further submitted that the penalty imposed upon the surety, being highly excessive, be remitted.

On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that full opportunity was given to the surety, to appear in person, and explain the circumstances, under which, he was unable to produce the accused, but he preferred to remain absent, despite service. He further submitted that it, therefore, could not be said that he was condemned unheard. He further submitted that, no ground for remission of the same, was made out.

Coming to the first contention of the Counsel for the appellant, it may be stated here, that reasonable opportunity was afforded to the surety to show-cause, as to why, the amount of forfeited surety bond, be not recovered from him. In case, he wanted to put forward his version, and explain the circumstances, as to why, he was unable to produce the accused, he could appear in the Court, and file reply to the notice, u/s 446 of the Crl. Appeal No. 314-SB of 2000 3 Cr.P.C. He preferred to remain absent. Opportunity was afforded to the surety, but he did not avail of the same, of his own accord, by remaining absent. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that he was condemned unheard. The first submission of the Counsel for the appellant, thus, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

Coming to the second contention of the Counsel for the appellant, it may be stated here, that there is some merit therein, as would be discussed hereinafter. No doubt, the appellant could not produce the accused. However, there is no material, on record, to show that he connived with the accused, so as to facilitate his abscondance, from the trial. There is also no material, on the record, to show that he had a scent that the accused, will jump the bail. Under these circumstances, it is a fit case, in which the amount of penalty should be reduced to some extent. In Mohammed Kunju and Another Vs. State of Karnataka, , the accused absented from the trial. He went to foreign country. He was declared absconder. Penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each, on two sureties of the accused, was imposed, by the trial Court. The order was upheld by the High Court. Ultimately, in appeal, the Apex Court held that since there was no allegation, that the surety connived with the accused, so as to facilitate his abscondance, nor there was anything, on the record, that he had even a remote scent that the accused will jump the bail, the amount of penalty deserved to be reduced. Accordingly, the amount of penalty, was reduced to Rs. 5000/-. Under these circumstances, the ends of justice shall be met, if the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- is reduced to Rs. 20,000/-. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant, to this extent, carries substance, and stands accepted.

For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted. The amount of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-, imposed upon the appellant, by the trial Court, vide the order impugned, is reduced to Rs. 20,000/-. The trial Court/the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, is directed to take further steps, in Crl. Appeal No. 314-SB of 2000 4 accordance with the provisions of law, for the recovery of Rs. 20,000/-, the reduced amount of penalty.