CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Roshan Lal vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 3 January 1997 · Citation: (1997) 2 RCR(Criminal) 228

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.K.Srivastava, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 388-SB 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

7 paragraphs · 368 words

K.K. Srivastava, J. (Oral)

1.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned DAG for the State of Haryana/respondent.

2.

The appellant Roshan Lal is aggrieved by order dated 23.5.1987 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,000/ for his failure to produce the accused Kashmiri Lal in a criminal case, in which the appellant stood surety for the accused. When the accused failed to appear before the Court, the bail bonds were forfeited and the appellant was served with a notice to show cause why the surety bond be not forfeited and the amount of surety be not realised from him, as the amount of penalty. In the opinion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the appellant failed to show any satisfactory cause against the forfeiture of the amount. Consequently, the penalty of the entire amount of the bond i.e. Rs. 3,000/ was imposed upon the appellant.

3.

The learned counsel for the appellant has, inter alia, argued that the penalty of the whole amount of the bond is per se heavy and the appellant is a poor man, earning his livelihood on daily basis at the rate of Rs. 12/, 13/ per day and he found it difficult to make his both ends meet. Apart from it, the appellant is having four children, his wife and ailing father to support.

4.

Learned AAG for the State of Haryana has referred to ground No. 2 of the grounds of appeal to say that even according to the appellant''s contention, he has spent a sum of Rs. 4,000/ in making efforts to trace out the accused that belies the claim of the appellant that he is financially not sound.

5.

Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the appellant made his sincere efforts to trace the accused, but unfortunately he failed to produce the accused and the matter is already more than 9 years old, through which the appellant has undergone the agony of imposing of the penalty, I deem it appropriate in the interest of justice to partly accept the appeal and reduce the amount of penalty from Rs. 3,000/ to Rs. 1,500/.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.