SHIVAGANGADHARAPPA, S/O SHIVANANJAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY RURAL POLICE, TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed under Section 449 (ii) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 2.12.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Tiptur in Crl. Misc. 955/11 rejecting the application filed by appellants under Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking remission of the fine amount. The appellants stood as sureties to accused Nos. 4 and 6 in S.C. No. 143/2010 registered for the offence punishable under Section 396 of IPC. Accused Nos. 4 and 6 remained absent in spite of issue of non -bailable warrants and they jumped the bail. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge served show cause notices on the appellants and registered a separate Mis. Case for proceeding against the appellants. Upon service of show cause notice, the appellants appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and took few adjournments to secure the accused. However, they could not secure the presence of the accused. Thereafter they filed application under Section 446 (3) of Cr.P.C. seeking remission of the fine amount inter alia on the ground that they are poor agriculturists and in spite of their best efforts they could not trace the accused and that they do not have the capacity to pay the entire bond amount and if they are directed to pay the entire bond amount, they would be put to great hardship and inconvenience. The learned Sessions Judge, by the order under appeal, rejected the application and directed recovery of entire bond amount as fine. It is against this order the present appeal is filed.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that the appellants stood as sureties for accused Nos. 4 and 6 before the learned Sessions Judge. They executed surety bonds for a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - each. It is also not in dispute that accused Nos. 4 and 6 later remained absent and therefore the bail as well as the surety bonds were forfeited. The appellants were issued with show cause notices pursuant to which they appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and filed application under Section 446(3) Cr.P.C. Under sub section (3) of Section 446 Cr.P.C. the court is empowered to remit any, portion of the penalty and enforce payment in part only, In the application, except stating that they made efforts to trace the accused and they could not succeed in doing so and they do not have the capacity to pay the entire bond amount, the appellants have not stated under which circumstances they stood as guarantors to accused Nos. 4 and 6. Accused Nos. 4 and 6 are not residents of the State of Karnataka, as they appear to be residents of Andhra Pradesh State. It is not the say of the appellants that the accused are related to them nor it is their case that accused Nos. 4 and 6 are their friends. From this it is clear that the appellants stood as sureties to two unknown persons. The appellants with their eyes wide open have agreed to be sureties to accused Nos. 4 and 6 thereby they had bound themselves with the conditions imposed in the surety bonds executed by them. The appellants have not placed any material before the court below for exercise of discretion for remitting portion of the penalty. In the absence of any ground or reason for remitting any portion of the fine amount, the court below has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 446 (3) Cr.P.C. The order does not suffer from any perversity or illegality and therefore, there are no merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.