Sohan Lal vs State of Haryana

S.S. Dewan, J.—This appeal is directed against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, on the forfeiture of the bond furnished by the Appellant.

It suffices to mention that the bond executed by the Appellant was in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The record discloses that Ram Singh accused who was being prosecuted in a case under Ss. 394/395/397/398, Indian Penal Code and for whose appearance the bond had been executed, did not appear in the trial Court on three different dates fixed in the case. He, however, later on appeared and was convicted and sentenced under the said offences. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the Appellant made the following observations:

Since the surety could not state any sufficient cause for the absence of the accused, so I hold that the surety bond has been duly forfeited and surety has got nothing to say. Hence, I order him to pay Rs. 10,000/- and this amount be recovered as fine. Since the surety is not in a position to pay Rs. 10,000/- so, in default he is sentenced to six months S.I. u/s 446(2) Cr. P. C.

The question of law involved in this appeal is whether a surety whose bond has been forfeited and who is unable to pay the penalty, can be sentenced to imprisonment? The point involved is not res integra. This question has been answered by S.C. Mital, J. in Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab (1981) 83 P.L.R. 112, that the only mode of recovery is by invoking S. 421, Cr.P.C which nowhere provides for imprisonment. I respectfully agree with this view of the Hon''ble Judge. In this situation, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge sentencing the Appellant to simple imprisonment for six months is hereby quashed.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant has forcefully appealed to the sympathy of this Court and prays that it should exercise its discretion to reduce the Appellant''s liability under the surety bond. The justification for this plea, it is said that the accused subsequently appeared in the Court and was convicted and sentenced for the offences with which he was charged and the Appellant being a petty shopkeeper is unable to pay the amount of Rs. 10,000/-.

The learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision in K. Rafudin Ahmed Vs. State of Mysore, wherein the learned single Judge of Mysore High Court observed:

The quantum of penalty must bear some co-relation to the circumstances present in a case such as long continued absence of the accused, the nature of offence with which he is charged and the likelihood of the State being put to further exertion and expenses in apprehending the accused. The poverty or ability of the surety to pay the sum, may well in certain circumstances be also a relevant fact.

Upon a consideration of the entire matter, in my view, the ends of justice will be met by reducing the amount of penalty to Rs. 1,500/-. It is ordered accordingly. This appeal stands disposed of.