RUPCHAND P CHAUHAN Vs. SUPDT OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition arises out of the judgment dt 17-8-76 in Crl App.134 of 1975 on the file of the II Addl Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner and confirming the order dated 18-8-75 made in Crl Misc.323 of 1975 by the Chie. Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 as penalty out of the forfeited surety bond amount of Rs.15,000.

(2.) The facts of the case, stated briefly, are as under: The Central Excise, Bangalore, have filed a complaint against one Devichand and few others for violation of Sec. 135 of the Customs Act. The revision petitioner Roopchand offered himeslf as surety to Devichand when he was arrested and produced before the Court and executed a surety bond for a sum of Rs.15,000 on 25-2-70. The Central Excise filed a complaint against Devichand and others on 11-11-74 which was taken on file in CC.3072'of 74. Summons was issued to Devichand and the other accused to appear before the Court on 20-12-74. Fresh summons was ordered to be issued for their appearance on 20-1-75. On 20-1-75, the learned Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City forfeited the bond executed by the revision petitioner since Devichand did not appear on that day. A show cause notice was issued to the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner appeared in response to the show cause notice on 15-5-75 and took time to produce Devichand and the case was adjourned to 16-6-75. On 16-6-75, the Magistrate directed to register a separate miscellaneous case aganist the revision petitioner. Accordingly, a miscellaneous case was registered in Crl Misc.323 of 1975. Thereafter, on hearing the revision petitioner, the Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 18-8-75 directing the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000 by way of penalty remitting the balance amount of Rs.10,000 out of the forfeited bond amount of Rs.15,000. The revision petitioner made an unsuccessful attempt to challenge the correctness of the said order in Crl App.134 of 1975 before the II Addl Sessions Judge, Bangalore. Hence, he has filed the present revision petition against the order of the appellate Court.

(3.) Shri B.T.Chhabria, learned Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner, firstly contended that the surety bond executed by the revision petitioner cannot be legally enforced against him as no date has been mentioned in it for the appearance of the accused and as such the surety bond is invalid and unenforceable. I see little force in this contention.