Partly allowed

Mithan Lal v. State of Hy.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Aug 2013CRA-S/578/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld an order sentencing the appellant to civil imprisonment for six months for failing to pay a fine as a surety. Considering the appellant's indigent status and lack of ownership over the property he claimed as his, the court reduced the term to ten days.

What did the court decide?

Civil imprisonment of six months reduced to ten days; original order otherwise upheld.

Mithan Lal Vs State of Hy. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Appeal No. 578-SB of 2003 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Appeal No. 578-SB of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision:August 21,2013

¶3

Mithan Lal ......................................... Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Haryana .................................. Respondent

¶6

Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri

¶7

1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶8

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶9

Present: None for the Appellant.

¶10

Mr. Deepak Mishra, DAG, Haryana.

¶11

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

¶12

Challenge is to the order dated 18.01.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby in proceedings initiated under Section 446 Cr.P.C. the appellant-Mithan Lal was sentenced to undergo civil imprisonment for six months for not depositing `10,000/- as per order dated 5.10.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri.

¶13

The appellant had stood surety for one Chattar Pal son of Antu Ram in a case under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. Kaur RupinderThe accused misused the concession of bail and the surety 2013.08.23 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶14

Crl. Appeal No. 578-SB of 2003 (O&M) [ 2 ]

¶15

was forfeited to the State. Proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were initiated and he did not contest the notice. Vide order dated 5.10.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri a penalty of `10,000/- was imposed upon him. The fine could not recovered as the surety lived in a small room and did not own any moveable or immovable property.

¶16

The Supreme Court in Mohammed Kunju v. State of Karnataka 1994 (4) RCR (Criminal) 726 had examined a case where the accused had jumped bail and 25,000/penalty was imposed upon surety. While extending the benefit of remission, the penalty was reduced to 5,000/-. A finding was recorded that the surety did not have any knowledge that the accused will jump the bail and abscond.

¶17

In the present case, a finding has been recorded while sentencing him to civil imprisonment for six months that the surety did not own any moveable or immovable property and he lived in a small room which belonged to his brother. He had misrepresented himself to be the owner of the house valuing `1.5 lacs.

¶18

This appeal has been pending since 2003 and almost 10 years for gone by and it is not the case of the prosecution that he had the knowledge that the accused, for which he stood surety, had been helped by him to abscond and that he had any knowledge that he will jump the bail.

¶19

Kaur Rupinder 2013.08.23 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

Crl. Appeal No. 578-SB of 2003 (O&M) [ 3 ]

¶21

Keeping in view the financial condition of the appellant, the order dated 18.01.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri is upheld. However, the civil imprisonment of six months is reduced to 10 days.

¶22

The petition is disposed of.

¶23

( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE

¶24

21.8.2013 rupi

¶25

Kaur Rupinder 2013.08.23 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Mithan Lal v. State of Hy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithan Lal v. State of Hy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Piara Lal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Anmol Singh Vs State of Punjab

Beant Singh Vs Bikramjit Singh

Gaurav Alias Sony Vs State of Punjab

Brij Mohan Vs Gurdev Singh

Vicky Vs State of Punjab