CHET RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ajay Tiwari, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned order.

(2.) THE appellant Chet Ram has preferred this appeal against the order dated 8.5.2009, passed by the learned Special Judge Gangster Act/A.S.J. Vth, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 160 of 2000, whereby the learned Special Judge has issued a recovery warrant against the appellant for recovery of Rs. 25,000 being the amount of penalty on account of forfeiture of the personal bond of the appellant.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was in jail in connection with some other case and as such could not appear before the learned Special Judge. It was further submitted that the learned Special Judge has not given any show cause notice under Section 446, Cr. P.C. to the appellant before issuing the warrant for recovery of the penalty of Rs. 25,000. Issue of the recovery warrant without giving a show cause notice to the appellant was invalid. THE learned counsel further submitted that the appellant would appear before the Special Judge within the time allowed by this Court and to move appropriate application before the learned Special Judge for modifying the order issuing the recovery warrant. It was further submitted that the impugned order be modified accordingly.