K RAFFUDDIN AHMED Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by a surety, who has been called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 500 on forfeiture of the bond executed by him, for a sum of Rs. 1000. It would appear that the accused owing to indisposition had endeavoured to secure adjournments in the case at various stages. Ultimately when a non-bailable warrant was issued on 25-3-1971, the accused approached this Court and secured an order for re-calling the said warrant. Meanwhile, proceedings were instituted against the petitioner for the enforcement of the bond executed by him as a surety. A notice was caused to be served on the petitioner and on 17-8-1971 the surety-bond was forfeited on account of the absence of the petitioner. Further proceedings by way of attachment of movable properties were taken for the recovery of the sum of Rs.1000, which was the entire sum mentioned in the bond. On 24-9-1971 the petitioner appeared in Court and filed an application through a

(2.) Counsel practically requesting that he might be leniently dealt with in view of his age and his impecunious circumstances. Indeed a submission was made on his behalf that he would be willing to pay only a part of the amount under the bond if so ordered. The learned Magistrate reduced the sum payable to Rs.750. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge at Shimoga, reduced the amount further to Rs.500. The proceedings against the petitioner were instituted in Crl.Mis.Case No.51 of 1971 by the Special First Class Magistrate, Sagar.

(3.) Sri P. Vishwanatha Shetty, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the proceedings for forfeiture of the bond and recovery of the amount were clearly vitiated inasmuch as the provisions of S.514 of CrlPC had not been complied with. Alternatively, he submitted that the determination of the amount payable is in the nature of a penalty and, therefore", clearly called for application of the mind by the Court in regard to it. His further submission is that both the Courts below have not assigned any reasons as to why the sum of Rs.500 should be levied as a penalty, beyond saying that the petitioner is a retired and old Government servant and is laced with some difficulty as to the recovery of the amount due to him from his properties.