K. MOHAMMED Vs. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on merits.

(2.) THE Petitioner herein K. Mohammed, by the impugned order of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, dated 17.3.2001, in SC 25 of 2000, is called upon as surety for A3 -Amir Ali in the said Sessions Case, to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - as the amount covered by the surety bond, that had been forfeited on account of the said A3 -Amir Ali's failure to appear in the Court, on the footing that the Petitioner is the one who had stood surety for the said A3 -Amir Ali and had executed the said surety bond.

(3.) IF the Petitioner himself were to be the one who had stood surety for A3 -Amir Ali, then, on account of A3 -Amir Ali's failure to appear in Court, the bond having come to be forfeited, there would be no alternative for the surety, on his failure to show sufficient cause, to pay whatever amount that is covered by the bond, unless a portion of it is remitted by the learned Sessions Judge. The question is whether it is the Petitioner K. Mohammed who had so stood surety for A3 -Amir Ali in SC 25 of 2000. Normally that should not present any difficulties, but the difficulties herein have arisen on account of the fact that the Petitioner K. Mohammed, when issued notice to show cause on forfeiture of the surety bond, has appeared in Court and has submitted that he is not the one who had stood surety for A3 -Amir Ali at all, and that, some one else has impersonated and has executed the surety bond in his name. Prima facie, the signatures appeared to be different. The learned Sessions Judge, no doubt, has held an enquiry, but the only basis for the learned Sessions Judge to conclude that the Petitioner was the one who stood surety for A3 -Amir Ali was that, the defence Counsel Sri P.P. Hegde is said to have identified the Petitioner as the one who had stood surety for A3 -Amir Ali. But, the learned Sessions Judge himself, in the very first paragraph, notices that, initially at the time the surety bond was to be executed, the person who stood surety was identified not by the said Counsel Sri P.P. Hegde, but by his junior Sri Jinendra Kumar. It was therefore necessary for the learned Sessions Judge to ascertain about the correct identity of the surety, not from Sri P.P. Hegde who was not the one that had identified the surety, but from Sri Jinendra Kumar, junior to the said Sri P.P. Hegde, who infact had identified the surety. Apart from that, the learned Sessions Judge also needed to hold a full -fledged enquiry, even permitting the parties including the Petitioner, to adduce such evidence as they may choose including examination of the matter by a handwriting expert, because it is a very serious matter that some one whose name is shown to be surety should come and submit that he was not the one who stood surety, but somebody else has impersonated. It is therefore essential for the learned Sessions Judge to find the truth or otherwise of this matter. The matter however does not appear to have been addressed with the seriousness that is required.