The court dismissed a criminal appeal challenging orders forfeiting a surety bond and related review rejections. The bench found the trial court acted correctly on merit as no illegality or infirmity existed in the orders under the relevant Cr.P.C. provisions.
The criminal appeal against the forfeiture of the surety bond and review rejections was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1657 of 2003
Appellant :- Sukkhu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- M.S. Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri M.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A., for the State.
This appeal under Section 449 Cr.P.C., is directed against the order dated 28.11.2001, 13.3.2002 and 11.3.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Court No. 20, Allahabad in S.T. No. 627 of 1996 (State Vs. Sukku) and Criminal Misc. Case No. 2 of 2001 (State Vs. Sukku).
Vide order dated 28.11.2001 surety bond of surety was forfeited. Vide order dated 13.3.2002, the application of the applicant/surety to review the order dated 28.11.2001 has been rejected. Vide order dated 11.3.2003 the review of the orders dated 28.11.2001 and 13.3.2002 have been rejected.
Sri M.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant contended that after receipt of notice on applicant/appellant, accused himself has surrendered before the trial court on 3.12.2001, therefore, no penalty would have been imposed against the appellant.
Learned A.G.A., contended that there no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the learned trial court.
From perusal of the orders dated 28.11.2001, 13.3.2002 and 11.3.2003 and record of the case, it is evident that accused Amrit Lal was not present on 28.11.2001, therefore, the surety bond has been forfeited. Even after that appellant-applicant has not filed any explanation as to why surety amount should not be paid by him. Accused later on appeared before the trial court is no ground to exonerate appellant/surety from the penalty imposed under Section 446 Cr.P.C. Perused the record as well as impugned orders. Appellant has sufficient opportunity to show the reason as to why penalty should not be recovered from him, even though, he has not filed any explanation. After considering all these facts, learned trial court has passed the impugned orders on merit.
There is no any provision under Cr.P.C., under which trial court may review its order/judgment.
In view of above, there is no any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by learned Trial Court.
Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed .
Order Date :- 12.1.2018 Jaswant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether surety bond forfeiture and penalty under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were lawful despite the accused later surrendering.
Whether the impugned orders dated 28.11.2001, 13.3.2002, and 11.3.2003 were illegal or infringeable.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sukku
State Of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
