KASHI NATH AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by Kashi Nath and Bindra Singh, who had stood sureties for the appearance of Harnandan Prasad accused, who had been committed to the court of Session for offences Under Sections 307, 323, 450, 460, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) MR . Sapru has strenuously urged that the accused had been committed to the court of Session on 11.9.1962, while the surety bonds in question were executed by the applicants on 14.11.1963. The perusal of the bonds, however, reveals that the sureties had undertaken to produce the accused even before the Sessions Judge. The mere fact that the surety bonds had been executed after the commitment proceedings cannot relieve them of their liability.

(3.) THUS there is no manner of doubt that the sureties had committed breach of their bonds by not being able to produce the accused on the dates fixed by the Sessions Judge. But it is not a case in which the entire amount of penalty should have been ordered to be realised from the applicants inasmuch as there were genuine difficulties in their way and the accused had ultimately surrendered on 1.1.1964. I think the ends of justice would be met if the applicants are ordered to pay the penalty of Rs. 1,000/ -each instead of Rs. 2500/ - each. I order accordingly and direct that the sureties shall pay the amount within a period of six weeks, failing which proceedings shall be taken for realisation of the same by attachment and sale of their properties.