BADAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. In this appeal since only a law point is involved, it can be decided without summoning the lower Court record. Hence the appeal is being heard and decided on merits at the admission stage.

(2.) IT appears that in S.T. No. 380 of 2002, State v. Sant Singh and Ors., under Section 302/34 I.P.C. the appellant Badam Singh and one Hakim Singh stood sureties for production of a Tractor. The Court passed an order for production of that Tractor but that Tractor was not produced and several applications were moved from the side of the applicant/appellant for time to produce it. On 20 -11 -2006 the applicant Badam Singh again moved an application to obtain time, as a last chance, to produce the Tractor. On that application the Court passed an order to the effect that the applicant Badam Singh was directed to produce the Tractor on 1 -9 -2006 but that Tractor was not produced on that date and according to the report of the S.O. Chaubiya the Tractor had been sent to some other place and so it could not be seized. It has further been stated in that order that thereafter notices were issued to the applicant to produce the Tractor and the applicant in spite of repeated opportunities being given did not produce the Tractor. On 20 -11 -2006 an application for grant of further time to him on personal ground of his Counsel was given, hence the application was allowed and date 27 -11 -2006 was fixed. On that date also, the Tractor was not produced, and the applicant Badam Singh and Hakim Singh again moved applications for 15 days' time for filing reply. Then that application was rejected by the Court holding that the last opportunity had already been provided and the matter regarding production of Tractor was pending since 1 -9 -2006, and since Badam Singh and Hakim Singh had not produced the Tractor and had not filed any reply, the Court passed an order for forfeiting their personal bonds and further ordered that a sum of Rs. 2 lacs is imposed as penalty. The Court also forfeited the personal bond of Badam Singh and further passed an order that a case under Section 446 Cr. P. C. should be registered against him and a recovery warrant of Rs. 2 lacs be issued against him. Aggrieved with that order the appellant Badam Singh filed this appeal.

(3.) FROM perusal of the certified copy of the orders dated 20 -11 -2006 and 27 -11 -2006, I do not find any force in the above contention of the appellant. It is apparent from perusal of the aforesaid order dated 20 -11 -2006 that the matter regarding production of Tractor was pending since 1 -9 -2006 and the appellant had been given repeated opportunities to produce it and he had also been given last chance for production of the Tractor on 20 -11 -2006, but he failed to produce it on that date and he moved another application for giving 15 days' further time to produce it, on the personal ground of his Counsel. The Court held that as a last chance, time up to 20 -11 -2006 was given to produce the Tractor. However, the applicant was again given time to produce the Tractor on 27 -11 -2006 but he did not produce it on that date also, and he moved another application seeking 15 days' more time to file reply. This application was rejected by the Court with this observation that the matter of production of Tractor was pending since 1 -9 -2006 and sureties Badam Singh and Hakim Singh had not produced the Tractor nor filed their reply. The Court, therefore, after rejecting the application forfeited the personal bond of Badam Singh and passed an order imposing penalty of Rs. 2 lacs to be recovered from him. Thereafter an order was passed for registration of case under Section 446 Cr.P.C. against him.