KHURSHEED BEGUM Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 449 Cr.P.C. by Mrs. Khursheed Begum and Mahender Kumar, sureties of Khyal Asghar, accused in Sessions Case, No. 205/85 is directed against the order dated 26th July 1995 of a learned Additional Session Judge by which warrants of attachment against the moveable and immoveable properties of both the sureties were ordered to be issued for recovery of the balance amount of Rs. 44, 467.00 from each of them.

(2.) In the memo of appeal it is alleged that the appellants stood surety for Rs. 2 lakhs each for Khyal Asghar in March 1991 and deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh each by way of F.D in the bank which F.D.R's were kept by the court at the time of acceptance of the surety bonds. Said accused after appearing on certain dates failed to appear in the trial Court. Appellants were, therefore, asked to appear in person and they informed the Court that they had information that the accused had died in Pakistan. However, the Additional Sessions Judge before whom the case was pending, was not satisfied about the accused having died in Pakistan and imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs each on the appellants by the order dated 4th July, 1991. Cr.Appeal No. 90/91 taken out by the appellants against that order was accepted by this Court by order dated 31st March, 1992 and the matter was remanded to the trial Court to proceed in accordance with law in the light of observations made in the said order dated 31st March, 1992. Thereafter the trial court issued notices afresh to both the appellants to file their replies and it again impose penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs each on the appellants vide order dated 8th May, 1995. By the order dated .26th July, 1995 after appropriating the amount of Rs. l,55,533.00 each being the maturity amount of the FDRs, court had issued warrants of attachment for recovery of the balance amount of Rs. 44,467.00 against each of the appellants. Thereafter the appellants filed a joint application on 31st July, 1995 for remitting the said amount but the same was dismissed summarily. It is stated that as the said accused had died in Pakistan long back in 1991 the court ought not to have imposed the said penalty on the appellants. It was prayed that the aforesaid order dated 26th July, 1995 may be set aside and the amount already recovered from the appellants be remitted.

(3.) I have heard Sh. K.K.Sud for the appellants and Sh. Pawan Behl for the State and have been taken through the record of the trial Court.