KHEMKARAN AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. This revision is directed against the order dated 26th Oct., 1983, passed by Shri P. Dayal, the then Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, partly allowing the appeal of the sureties of Khem Karan and Ram Charan and reducing the penalty from Rs.2000.00 to Rs. 500.00.

(2.) The revisionists Khem Karan and Ram Charan had stood sureties for the accused Ram Bhajan, who absconded. Learned Magistrate issued notices to the revisionists to produce the accused or to show cause why they not be directed to pay the penalty, mentioned in the bond. The revisionists prayed for time to produce the accused but despite time being granted twice, they could not produce him in the Court. They pleaded that the accused was in Nepal and therefore it was not possible for them to produce him in the court. They prayed for discharging the accused. Learned Magistrate rejected this plea and ordered them to pay penalty of Rs. 2000.00 each. However, as aforesaid the learned Sessions Judge, reduced the amount from Rs. 2000.00 to Rs.500.00.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that the accused had surrendered in the appellate court and, therefore, the sureties could not be penalised. He referred to Sec. 444 (3) Criminal Procedure Code. This provision is not applicable. Sec. 444 Criminal Procedure Code provides that the sureties may at any time apply to a Magistrate to discharge the bond, either wholly or so far as it relates to them. On such application being made, the Magistrate shall issue warrant of arrest, directing that the person so released be brought before him. On the appearance of such person pursuant to the warrant, or on his voluntary surrender, the Magistrate shall direct the bond to be discharged, either wholly or so far as it relates to the applicants, and shall call upon such person to find other sufficient sureties, and, if he fail to do so, may commit him to jail.