LAWS(DLH)-1990-5-10

SHAM SUNDER Vs. STATE OF DELHI

Decided On May 25, 1990
SHAM SUNDER Appellant
V/S
STATE OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been brought against order dt. Sept. 8, 1981, of an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by which he had dismissed the appeal filed against order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, dt. July 16, 1981, by which he had imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand) on the petitioner.

(2.) This petition had reached for hearing throughout the last month as well as this month but no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Today in the earlier part of the day Mr. P.P. Khurana, Advocate, had appeared in another matter and he was apprised of this case and he expressed his regrets for not appearing earlier and had undertook to appear today to argue this matter but it is really unfortunate that the counsel has not cared to appear although case has been awaited till after lunch. I have now gone through the record of the lower court and proceed to dictate the judgement.

(3.) One of the pleas raised in the petition was that no personal bond was executed by the accused and thus, the surety bond executed by the petitioner was not enforceable. The facts, in brief, are that in a case under S.380 of the Penal Code as per FIR No. 30/77 of Police Station Karol Bagh, the petitioner had stood surety for the accused and had executed the surety bond undertaking that he would see that accused appeared on every date of hearing in the case in court and in case any default was made in that respect he would be bound to pay Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand) as penalty. It is true that accused-Smt. Kiran Bala @ Kuldeep Kaur, for whom the petitioner stood surety, had not signed the personal bond. So, the short legal question which arose for decision in the present petition was whether the surety bond was enforceable against the petitioner or not in absence of personal bond being signed by the accused. I find that in the order of admission dt. Feb. 4, 1982, Charanjit Talwar, J. (as His Lordship then was) had recorded the order to the following effect :