STATE Vs. BADUSHA AND MUNUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the State, represented by the learned Public Prosecutor challenging the order of the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Chengam, made on 24 -8 -1984 in M.C. No. 2 of 1984 forfeiting Rs. 30 only, out of the bonds executed by the Respondents for Rs. 1,000, which they had executed while offering themselves as sureties to one Karuppu Settu, who is said to be involved in a case of murder, and praying for the enhancement thereof. The bonds were executed by the Respondents on 29 -10 -1983.

(2.) A few facts may have to be narrated to dispose of this appeal. Karuppu Settu was an accused in Cr. No. 107 of 1983 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Chengam, which Crime had been registered for offences under Ss. 302 and 307, I.P.C, Karuppu Settu filed Crl. M P. No. 957 of 1983 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, North Arcot at Vellore. for bail. Court of Session North Arcot Division, directed the release of Karuppu Settu on bail, on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,000 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Chengam. Pursuant to the order of bail the Respondents are stated to have executed surety bonds on 29 -10 -1963 before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, each for a sum of Rs. 1,000, undertaking to produce before the Court the said Karuppu Settu, during every hearing.

(3.) THIRU A.S. Chakravarthi, learned Counsel appearing for the State, submitted that the order of the trial Court imposing a grossly disproportionate penalty to the amount of bonds executed in a capital case cannot be sustained and the reason of poverty alone, if could be treated as a ground, may amount to a passport for sureties to execute bonds and walk out later with flea -bite penalties. While testing the sureties, it is incumbent on the Magistrate to carefully peruse the records regarding the solvency of sureties, for a later escape from their liability on the guise of poverty should not affect the cause of justice. He would also contend that in view of the non production of the accused in the murder case the trial had been stalled and imposing of petty penalties would indirectly help to encourage touts and professional sureties to hamper the progress of trial. Though a lenient view may be feasible in certain circumstances, it will be erroneous to mechanically release the sureties after imposing very nominal penalties, which ultimately does not serve the cause of justice.