Sattar And Another vs The State Of Haryana on 10 March, 2009

Criminal Appeal No.652-SB of 2009                             -1-

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH
                         ****
                                 Criminal Appeal No.652-SB of 2009
                                     Date of Decision:10.03.2009

Sattar and another
                                                       .....Appellants
             Vs.

The State of Haryana
                                                       .....Respondent


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL

Present:-    Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the appellants.
                         ****
JUDGMENT

HARBANS LAL, J. (Oral)

Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Amit Kaushik, learned Assistant

Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on

behalf of the State.

This appeal is directed against order dated 6.3.2009 passed by

the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon whereby the

application moved by the appellants for recalling recovery warrants has

been dismissed.

As is borne out from this order, the appellants had furnished

surety bonds in the sum of Rs.1 lac each on 24.5.2008 with an undertaking

to produce the accused in the Court on each and every date of hearing. The

accused absented on 8.10.2008. The bail bonds were forfeited. Notice

under Section 446 of Cr.P.C calling upon the sureties (referring to the

appellants) to show cause as to why the action be not taken against them
Criminal Appeal No.652-SB of 2009 -2-

was issued for 12.11.2008 which was received back duly served but they did

not put in their appearance before the learned trial Court and as its

consequence, they were proceeded against ex parte and a penalty to the tune

of Rs.1 lac each was imposed in lieu of surety bonds furnished by them.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants

being very poor persons. They have to feed large number of the members of

their respective families. That being so, lenient view may be taken.

As reflected in the impugned order, the accused has been

arrested and acquitted vide judgment dated 16.1.2009. Taking into

consideration the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, the

penalty amount of each appellant is reduced to Rs.10,000/-. Each appellant

shall deposit Rs.10,000/- within a period of two months from the date of

receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Meanwhile, operation of order

dated 12.11.2008 vide which the recovery warrants have been issued, shall

remain stayed. If this amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period,

the trial Court shall be at liberty to realise Rs.1 lac from the defaulter by

reviving the recovery proceedings. If both the appellants deposit the said

amount within the aforementioned period, the impugned order as well as the

order dated 12.11.2008 shall stand set aside.

Disposed of accordingly.

March 10, 2009                                     ( HARBANS LAL )
renu                                                    JUDGE

Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No