IN THE men comm' or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE'
DATED THIS THE 1-at mv 09' JULY, 2003 T VT
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE sU_BHA_sH f;'s.'ADi.:: *
CRIMINAL Ravxslon PErIT1oN:'N0g70s;/20§8/ *'
BETWEEN:
1. Ashoka B. H.
Sfo. H. Hanumanthazayapjta, -_
Aged about 45 years, H " '
Bachenahatty,
MagadiTa1uk, ;_ _ *
BANGALORE "
2. Razugaswamy; -j ' _ A 'V V
s; 0. .1§a;ig¢'1--s:';ow.3¢a ' '
Age ahcmt 37' yams, _ .
Rcsiding.._at--N'a..10,x'f-. * .. '
Rachcnahatti, " "
Maga<iiTa1i11§a" 2 "
Bangalore Rura1 Di:3ttict._ PEITITIONERS
Associates, Advs.)
ANf): ' "
uuumumuu.
Stafe by' chjci;-ipkfi Police
. Rep. By the' Public Prosecutor,
_ _ 4 S¢fssions~.C<:en1,
RESPONDENT
(By Sri. Honnappa, HCGP)
..--u--.-
orm? is filed U/S397 R/W 401 Cr.P.C. pzaying to
«~ aside the order Dt.0S.O4.08 issued against the
appellants] suretics in SPL.C.C..No.41/06 fmm the XXXIII Addl.
City Civil and S.J. and SPL. Judge (NDPS), Bangalore, as per
Anne:xI_1re-A and permitting them to deposit the bond amount by
reducing the mama and mlaaaing them in anxiety «hip fiaxm
accused No.2.
This revision petition coming on for admission this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Order dated 5.4.2003 passed by the XXXIII Add]. ciayf ,
and Sessions judge, Bangalore is called in question.
2. By order dated 5.4.2003, the Leann:-d’ t§fi,fityr.u(j3i§.+i1
Sessions Judge had issued FLW against {he
of accused No.2 for Whom these
Fiom the order of the Trial Court itisiségfisar’-»t;1at,’ No.2
has remained absent and despite my xéasjiaimnght.
3. It 1 and 2 have stood
surety for .’A.ccused No.2 by executing
the bond. In sueh. the duty of the surety is to
eiisuie v.iof”ac£:_11sed No.2. Failure of production of
Court naturally bound to cancel] forfeit
jibe hgineisnd iiséiga 13:031.
-. counsel for the petitioner relied on the
the Apex Court reported in 2000 SCC {Crl.) 34 and
H that, Supreme Court has reduced the fine amount
25,000/~ to Rs.5,000/-. The circumstances of the said
is diifcxent, the fine amount was reduced, as the ofiimce
was aileged against the foreign students and ofience was rninor
offence of indictznent behavior and the offence being not 86110118
ofience, in such circumstances, the tint: amount was reduced.
But the ofience alleged in this case against the accused is uzidcr
the Narcotic Drugs Act, being the serious offence, I ” V.
there is no justification to interfere with the onier H
learned Sessions Jucige.
Revision dismissed.
*AP/ ~–