MANJUNATHA Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the witnesses cited by the prosecution in a criminal case. They were bound over by the learned Magistrate on execution of a bond to appear before the learned Magistrate on a later date. They did not appear before the learned Magistrate as undertaken by them in the bond executed in favour of the court. The learned Magistrate thereupon initiated proceedings under Sec.446 of the Cr.P.C. The impugned order has thus been passed under Sec.446 of the Cr.P.C. directing payment of an amount of Rs.2,000/- each. Balance amount was remitted.

(2.) The petitioners have come to this Court with this petition under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to challenge the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is patently wrong and results in miscarriage of justice.

(3.) I am unable to agree. Notwithstanding the fact that the Section has been wrongly quoted by the learned Magistrate as "Sec.446A of the Cr.P.C." and the fact that the learned Magistrate has used an inelegant and inappropriate expression "fined Rs.2000/-", the fact remains that the impugned order is one imposing a penalty under Sec.446 of the Cr.P.C. Such an order is amenable to challenge under Sec.449 of the Cr.P.C. I find no reason to invoke the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to interfere with such an order.