Partly allowed

Mem Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2022CRLA/4900/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal against forfeiture of sureties, with the appellants having died during pendency. Considering justice interests and prior partial payment, half the remaining penalty was remitted, and the appeal was partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Remission of half portion of the penalty imposed upon the appellants following their death; criminal appeal partly allowed

Mem Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4900 of 2002

¶3

Appellant :- Mem Singh And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 449 CrPC has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 01.11.2002 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 671 of 1996, by which, recovery of sureties amount has been ordered under Section 446 CrPC.

¶7

Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that both the appellants stood sureties for the accused Kavindra, pursuant to the bail granted to him, however subsequently, accused abstained from appearing before the court below, as such, his bail was cancelled and notices were issued to the appellants to show cause why the sureties, given by them, be not forfeited. The appellants appeared before the court below and submitted their reply, however, trial court was not satisfied with their reply and imposed penalty to the tune of surety amount furnished by them and also issued recovery warrants for the recovery of the surety amount.

¶8

Being aggrieved by the said order dated 01.11.2002, the appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 449 CrPC before this Court. This Court vide order dated 26.11.2002, stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 01.11.2002 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Saharanpur subject to deposition of 50% of the surety amount within four weeks and the instant appeal remain pending.

¶9

Subsequently thereafter, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur vide his letter dated 24.03.2021 has informed this Court that appellant no.1 Mem Singh and appellant no.2 Ajab Singh have expired on 23.05.2006 and 28.01.2010 respectively.

¶10

In verification of their death, statement of Ravindra, S/o appellant no.1 Mem Singh and Soraj Singh, S/o Malkhan Singh has been recorded. The death certificate of both the appellants issued by Government of Uttar Pradesh has also been annexed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that pursuant to the said order dated 26.11.2002, 50% of the surety amount has been deposited by the appellants and during pendency of this appeal, both the appellants had already expired, therefore, interest of justice would be served if the penalty amount be remitted in accordance to the provision contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 446 CrPC.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the said prayer of the appellants but could not dispute the fact that both the appellants had already expired and half of the surety amount has already been deposited by them.

¶13

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that both the appellants have already expired and half of the surety amount had already been deposited by them, interest of justice would be served by remitting half portion of the penalty imposed upon them.

¶14

In the backdrop of the aforesaid circumstances, half portion of the penalty imposed upon the appellants is remitted. The criminal appeal is accordingly partly allowed .

¶15

Order Date :- 13.4.2022 Nadim

¶16

Digitally signed by NADIM ALAM Date: 2022.04.13 15:55:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mem Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mem Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeshwar Vs State of U.P.

Balbir Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Manak @ Nanak @ Karua Vs State of U.P.

Nirakar Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.