Partly allowed

Shiv Lal Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2022CRLA/5499/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant, a bond-surety, was detained for civil imprisonment due to non-payment of bond forfeiture. The High Court, noting the appellant's death during the appeal pendency and partial payment already made along with serving imprisonment, remitted the remaining penalty under Section 446(3) Cr.P.C. to serve interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

The amount of penalty imposed on the appellant was remitted to the amount already deposited by the appellant.

Shiv Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5499 of 2003

¶3

Appellant :- Shiv Lal Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Daya Ram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

List has been revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 449 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 19.9.2003 passed by Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Meerut in Criminal Case No. 92 of 2002, under Section 446 Cr.P.C., P.S. Delhigate, District- Meerut.

¶7

Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant Shiv Lal Yadav stood sureties for the accused- Asif, pursuant to the bail granted to him, however subsequently, accused- Asif abstained from appearing before the court below, as such, his bail was cancelled and notices were issued to the appellant to show cause why the bonds, given by him, may not be forfeited. The appellant failed to appear before the court below and did not submit any explanation. As a consequence thereto, his bond was forfeited and recovery warrant of the forfeited amount was issued and the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as penalty. In default of amount of the penalty imposed, the appellant was directed to undergo four months' imprisonment in Civil Jail under the provision contained in Section 446 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant could not pay due amount of Rs. 25,000/-, as such he was detained in Civil Jail since 19.9.2003.

¶8

Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 449 Cr.P.C. before this Court. This Court vide order dated 4.11.2003 directed the appellant Shiv Lal Yadav to be released on bail and further directed that the realization of 3/4 amount of the penalty of Rs. 25,000/imposed upon the appellant shall remain stayed.

¶9

The Instant appeal remained pending and thereafter C.J.M, Meerut, vide his letter dated 23.11.2021, has informed this Court that sole appellant- Shiv Lal Yadav had already expired on 16.4.2013. In verification of his death, statement of Krishna Yadav, daughter in-law of the appellant and Sachin son of the appellant has been recorded. Death Certificate issued by

¶10

Cantonment Board, Meerut Cantt. has also been annexed.

¶11

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the appellant had undergone more than one and a half months of civil imprisonment and 1/4 penalty was also deposited by him and during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant had already expired. Therefore interest of justice would be served if balance penalty amount is remitted in accordance with the provision contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 446 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the said relief but could not dispute the fact that the appellant had already expired and 1/4 penalty was deposited by him and further he had also undergone civil imprisonment of one and a half months

¶13

In the backdrop of the aforesaid circumstance, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if penalty imposed is reduced to amount already paid by the appellant as penalty, keeping in view that he has already undergone one and a half months of civil imprisonment.

¶14

In view of the above, the amount of penalty imposed upon the appellant, is remitted to the amount already deposited by the appellant.

¶15

The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.

¶16

Order Date :- 13.4.2022 KU

¶17

Digitally signed by KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.04.18 16:33:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shiv Lal Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Lal Yadav 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.

Mem Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.