Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3884 of 2010 Petitioner :- Tribhuwan Singh & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Sanjay Kr. Srivastava,R.K. Tripathi Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A., and perused the
record.
Appeal has been preferred against the impugned orders dated 5.6.2010 and
28.5.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act/Fast Track Court
Banda in Misc. Case No. 17/XI of 2009 ( State Vs. Tribhuwan and another)
under Section 386, 342, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, P.S.
Bisanda, District Banda whereby the learned Special Judges has rejected the
objection of appellants and has directed for initiating the recovery proceeding
in respect of the surety amount of Rs. 30 thousand each from the appellants as
land Revenue. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that
the accused was produced and taken into custody yet recovery proceeding in
respect of the surety amount has been initiated due to failure of producing the
accused Goli alias Ashok Kumar before the learned trial court and it was
directed to recover the same as land revenue from the appellants.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that in pursuance of
notice issued under Section 446 Cr.P.C dated 5.1.2010 against the appellants
the accused has already surrendered yet recovery proceeding has been
initiated which is nothing but abuse of process of the court. The order
imposing the penalty against both of them should have been set aside.The
recovery should have been canceled.The appellants are very poor persons and
the amount may be reduced. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submitted that
there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below. Though the
accused has been surrendered and taken into custody but Lapses on the part of
the sureties is apparent on the face of record.The learned counsel for the
appellants has further contended that the appellants are ready to furnish half
of the amount of the sureties. Since the appellants have produced the accused
goli@ Ashok Kumar as is apparent from the order itself the matter of
recovery of the bail bonds require reconsideration. Appeal deserves to be
allowed to this extent only.Therefore considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, the order passed by the court below shall be kept in abeyance and
the appellants are directed to deposit 1/3 of the amount within a period of one
month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
with this observation, the appeal is disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.6.2010
prabhat