NARAYANAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners did not comply with the terms of the bail bond executed to ensure the attendance of the accused and in respect of which they stood sureties. The accused did not appear on a date fixed for hearing, whereupon the court forfeited the bail bond and directed the petitioners to pay a penalty of Rs. 1500/-. It would appear that the case was subsequently withdrawn; but proceedings for enforcement of the forfeited bail bond and payment of the fine of Rs. 1500/- were pursued under the Revenue Recovery Act (R.R. Act). The notices, Exts. P2 to P6 were issued to the petitioners. They are challenged on the ground that the amount cannot be recovered under the provisions of the R.R. Act.

(2.) S.446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down the procedure for forfeiture of bail bonds and for imposition of penalty. It further provides that the amount may be recovered as if it were a fine imposed by the court. S.421 lays down the modes of recovery of fine. To recover the amount, the court may issue a warrant to the District Collector authorising him to realise the amount as an arrear of land revenue from the movable or immovable property or both of the defaulter. The court has invoked this provision for recovery of the penalty of Rs. 1500/-.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that S.421 ipso facto applies only to the recovery of fine from an offender, and not of penalty from the surety of a bail bond. But S.446(2) creates a fiction in relation to the amount of penalty imposed under that section, to the effect that the penalty may be recovered as if it were a fine imposed under the Code. The procedure for recovery of a fine prescribed by S.421 is therefore attracted to the recovery of the penalty under S.446 and therefore the notices Exts. P2 to P6 were rightly issued under the R.R. Act.