ESHWARAPPA S/O KURI SIDDARARNAYYA Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY KALLARNBELLA POLICE THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE has been a delay of 964 days in filing this appeal. The appellant has sought for condonation of the said delay. The appellant stood as surety to accused Nos.1 to 3 in Special Case No. 105/2005 pending before the I Additional District Judge, Tumkur, registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC read with Section 136 of the Electric Act. When accused Nos. 1 to 3 for whom the appellant stood as surety remained absent before the court, non -bailable warrants were issued against them and show cause notice was issued to the appellant as far back as on 21.2.2008. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order sheet maintained by the trial Court, show cause notice issued to the appellant on several occasions were returned unserved. Ultimately the notice for the hearing date as 12.8.2008 was served on the appellant. In spite of the same he remained absent. Ultimately by order dated 19.12.2008, the trial Court ordered forfeiture of the surety bonds executed by the appellant in a sum of Rs.10,000/ - for each of accused Nos. 1 to 3 and directed recovery of the bond amounts as fine. It is the said order, which is questioned in this appeal. The appellant has contended that he had no knowledge of the proceedings, therefore, he could not file the appeal in time. The said explanation is not satisfactory and not an acceptable explanation.

(2.) AS noticed supra, the show cause notice issued Lo the appellant was served personally on him with hearing dated as 12.8.2008 and he remained absent on that day. It is thereafter the trial Court ordered forfeiture of the bonds. Subsequently, the trial Court ordered registration of a separate case against the appellant pursuant to which the case in Crl.Misc.No.55/ 2009 came to be registered against the appellant for recovery of the fine amount. In the said proceedings also, notice was issued to the appellant and though he was served, he did not appear before the court. Therefore, the trial Court proceeded to recover the fine amount by sale of the property offered as surety, before the Court, It is thereafter the appellant has presented this appeal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellant has been served with the notices issued by the trial Court, it is not open to him to contend that he had no knowledge of the proceedings. The inordinate delay in filing this appeal has not been satisfactorily explained. The explanation offered in the affidavit filed in support of the application is not satisfactory and on these grounds the long inordinate delay of 964 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. Therefore, I find no ground to condone the delay. Hence, I.A.1/12 is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also rejected.