Pritam Singh vs State of Punjab

Daya Chaudhary, J.

Crl. Misc. No. 24120 of 2013

This is an application for condonation of 94 days delay in filing the accompanying appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 94 days in filing the accompanying appeal is hereby condoned.

Crl. Appeal No. S-1439-SB of 2013

The present appeal has been filed against order dated 29.11.2012 passed by Judge, Special Court, Bathinda, vide which a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- has been imposed upon the appellant u/s 446 Cr.P.C., who stood surety for accused-Karnail Singh.

Briefly the facts of the case are that appellant-Pritam Singh stood surety for accused-Karnail Singh, who was facing trial in case FIR No. 77 dated 27.8.2011 registered under Sections 15/ 61/ 85 of NDPS Act at Police Station City Rampura as he was found in possession of 20 kgs of poppy husk. Accused-Karnail Singh was granted regular bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like amount and was appearing regularly before the trial Court. On 18.8.2012, accused absented himself from the Court and his bail bonds and surety bonds were cancelled and the amount was forfeited to the State. Non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued for 29.9.2012 and notice u/s 446 Cr.P.C. was also issued to the surety-appellant. On 29.11.2012, a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- was imposed upon the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant received a notice on 29.9.2012 and in response to that he appeared before the trial Court and made a promise to produce accused-Karnail Singh. Learned counsel further contends that the appellant made all efforts to trace out the whereabouts of accused-Karnail Singh but inspite of that penalty has been imposed upon him. Learned counsel also submits that accused-Karnail Singh surrendered before the trial Court and he is now in custody. It is also the contention of learned counsel that amount of penalty imposed upon the appellant is on the excessive side and he being a poor person is not in a position to pay the same and the same may be reduced.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the appellant does not deserve any leniency being the surety of the accused.

Undoubtedly, Section 446(3) Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to remit any portion of the penalty. The discretion is within the domain of the Court as upto what extent the benefit of remission can be granted but such discretion is to be exercised judicially and for good and sufficient reasons. As per submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was not granted sufficient time to trace out accused-Karnail Singh and penalty was imposed upon him and the accused has also surrendered before the trial Court and is in custody.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above and to meet out the ends of justice, the appellant deserves some leniency in the matter of penalty. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and penalty of Rs. 30,000/- imposed upon the appellant is reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. The reduced amount of penalty shall be deposited by the appellant with the trial Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In case of failure in depositing the amount of penalty within the stipulated period, the entire amount of default i.e. Rs. 30,000/- shall be recovered from the appellant, in accordance with law. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- has already been deposited by the appellant and since the amount of penalty has been reduced to Rs. 5000/-, the amount deposited in excess i.e. Rs. 5,000/- shall be refunded to the appellant, on moving of the application.