MURARI AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants Murari and Ramesh stood sureties to accused Naeem, who was facing trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/3rd FTC, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. When accused did not appear before the trial court, notices were issued to his sureties, but they did not responded to such notices. Compelled by the circumstances, the trial court instituted proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. against the sureties (appellants herein). Notices were again issued to the appellants. They filed their objections, pleading that they appeared in the trial court on 03.11.2003 along with their learned counsel, but returned, as Advocate Mr. Ashok Pant, a practicing lawyer in the local court passed away. [Learned Additional Session judge has held that the appellants did not turn up on the said date]. When the appellants did not turn up, trial court directed for issuance of recovery warrants against them.

(2.) When the appellants appeared before the trial court on 03.10.2003, they sought time to file objections. 20.10.2003 was fixed for filing of objections (by the sureties). The sureties (appellants herein) did not file the objections till that date. They did not make a request for enlargement of time. 03.11.2003 was fixed for filing of objections and disposal, but neither the appellants appeared before the trial court nor filed their objections. The trial court, therefore, had no option, but to issue realisation warrants against the appellants. Learned Sessions Judge/3rd FTC, therefore, committed no mistake in passing the order dated 03.11.2003. It was mentioned by the learned court below in his order dated 24.11.2003 that the appellants did not appear in the Court on 03.11.2003. Had they appeared in the Court on such date, they would have appended their signatures on the order-sheet. While passing the impugned order dated 24.11.2003, learned court below held that the objections filed by the appellants were not maintainable. Even if, it was not so, no plausible explanation was given by the appellants for not producing the accused in the Court despite having received notices by them in this behalf.

(3.) There is yet another aspect of the matter. On 22.11.2003, one of the appellants (Murari) sought ten days time to deposit the amount of penalty, which request of appellant Murari was accepted. But in spite of the same, the amount of penalty was not deposited by him. It was, therefore, rightly held that there was no question of cancellation of realization warrant against the sureties (appellants herein).