JEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question which arises in this appeal is whether on a date fixed for hearing of an appeal it is essential for an appellant to appear personally in the court and whether the bonds furnished by him and the sureties can be forfeited on account of his absence on that date.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are as under: Jeet Singh (appellant No.1) was convicted and sentenced in a criminal case (No. 1138 of 1977) to four months R.I. under Section 60 of the UP. Excise Act. He filed an appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 1977) against that order in the court of Sessions Judge, Nainital. He was also released on bail in that appeal on furnishing sureties and on executing a personal bond as ordered by the Sessions Judge Sardar Singh (appellant No.2) and Mahendra Singh (appellant No.3) were his sureties.

(3.) On 24.5.1977 the Sessions Judge fixed 19.7.1977 for hearing of the appeal and as provided in Section 385(1)(i) Cr. P.C. directed this date of hearing to be notified not only to the appellant No. 1 but to his counsel also. The order of the Sessions Judge dated 24,577 did not further call upon the appellant No.1 to appear personally on that date. It merely required that date to be notified to the appellant No.1, and his counsel (Suchit Ho). On 19.7.1977 neither the appellant No.1 nor his counsel appeared. In consequence thereof the bonds furnished by the appellant No.1 and his sureties viz, appellants Nos. 2 and 3 were forfeited. After forfeiture notices were issued to them to show cause why penalties contemplated under the bonds be not realized from them. The three appellants entered appearance and filed objections which were rejected on 14.1.1978. The realization of Rs. 500/- as penalty from each of the appellants under the bonds furnished by them were also ordered to be made. It is this order of the learned Sessions Judge which is now the subject matter of this appeal.