SADHURAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Gupta, J. Heard appellant's Counsel and the learned A. G. A.

(2.) IT is submitted that office has wrongly reported appeal to be barred by time. IT appears that when co- accused Munna Singh Pattidar alias Balbir Singh did not appear in the trial Court, the Court called upon his sureties to produce him. Notice was also alleged to have been served upon the appellant and by the order dated 5-12-2000 the trial Court directedof-fice to issue warrant of recovery of bond amount. IT further appears that thereafter the appellant appeared before the trial Court and filed objections stating therein that he had never stood surety for the aforesaid accused and had not furnished the bail bond and accordingly he moved an application for recalling the recovery war rant, whereupon the learned Magistrate without staying recovery proceedings directed the appellant to produce evidence in support of his case that he never stood surety in the present case for the abscond ing accused. The appellant thus ap prehends that recovery may be made from him though he had never stood surety for the accused. IT was further pointed out that recovery certificate has been issued without there being any order of forfeiture of the surety bond.