PRATAP NARAIN AND ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Counsel for Pratap Narain and Bankey Lal conceded at the outset that as there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure under which an appeal may lie to this Court against an order passed Under Sec. 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this case may be treated as a criminal revision. The case, therefore, is being treated as a criminal revision instead of as an appeal.

(2.) The relevant facts, as is apparent from the record, are that Rajendra Kumar, an accused wanted in a murder case pending in the court of Shri V.P. Mathur, Addl. Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, did not put in an appearance on 19 -4 -1969 in that court which was a date fixed in the sessions trial. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, ordered forfeiture of the surety bonds of the Applicants who stood as sureties for Rajendra Kumar when he was enlarged on bail. In the same order dated 19 -4 -1969 the learned Sessions Judge directed that the notices be issued to the Applicants to show cause why they be not ordered to pay the amounts mentioned in the bonds as penalty. The next date fixed was the 21st of April, 1969. From the order passed on the 21st of April it appears that later on the 19th of April a telegram was received to the effect that Rajendra Kumar was involved in some accident and therefore, could not attend the court. It is not known whether the contents of the telegram were correct. The sureties i.e. the Applicants appeared before the learned Sessions Judge on the 21st of April and prayed for a week's time to produce Rajendra Kumar or to furnish necessary information to the court regarding Rajendra Kumar. They were granted a week's time but were ordered to deposit the amounts stipulated in their bonds within that period and also to show cause why the entire amount be not realised. Ultimately, on the 28th of April, 1969, the learned Sessions Judge directed the ADM (J) to realise the amounts from the Applicants as penalty.

(3.) It is true that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have discussed in his order the question as to whether the Applicants were able to give any satisfactory reason for the absence of Rajendra Kumar on the 19th of April. But though more than two years have passed, the learned Counsel for the Applicants could not even today show to the Court that either of the Applicants had any good reason or explanation to offer for the absence of Rajendra Kumar on 18 -4 -1969 or on the dates subsequently fixed in the case by the court of session. It appears that Rajendra Kumar has not yet surrendered.