In a revision petition regarding forfeiture of surety, the High Court reduced the imposed penalty on the petitioner from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 15,000 considering his financial status, allowing time for payment.
Fine reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 15,000 to be deposited within one month.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revision No. 2974 of 2009 Date of Decision: 13.11.2009
Gurpreet Singh
.. Petitioner Vs.
State of Punjab
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
**Present:Mr. D.R. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. *****
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
Heard. Notice of motion.
Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab who is present in Court accepts notice.
The petitioner stood surety for regular appearance of one Jaswinder Singh, an accused in case FIR No. 181 dated 14.7.2005, under Sections 307, 341, 323, 427, 201, 148, 149 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, Barnala. However, Jaswinder Singh @ Shinder Singh did not appear before the Court and has consequently, his bail was cancelled and bonds were forfeited to the State and ultimately proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. are initiated against him. The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 446 Cr.P.C. and the Court imposed the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- equivalent to the amount of surety bond and asked for recovery of the same. Hence this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent that the amount of fine, as imposed, be reduced, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a poor farmer and despite concerted efforts he has failed to trace the accused.
Heard. There is breach of condition of surety bond on the part of the petitioner. But there is nothing on record which is suggestive of the fact that the petitioner had any remote scent that the accused is preparing to
2
escape from the Court or he had connived with the accused jumping out the bail. Therefore, keeping in view the antecedents of the petitioner and the facts and circumstances of the case, the fine imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to Rs. 15000/-, which shall be deposited by him within a period of one month. On his failure to do so, the present petition deem to have been dismissed without there being any effect on the recovery proceedings, if any, initiated by the Court below in respect of amount of Rs.50,000/-.
With the above modification the instant revision petition stands
disposed of.
(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE
November 13,2009 Jiten
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the fine imposed on the petitioner for default in appearance should be reduced considering his financial status.
The scope of revision under Section 446 Cr.P.C. regarding forfeiture of surety.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Gurpreet Singh
State of Punjab
Arvind Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
