NASIM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIST has been revised. None responds for the appellants. The name of Mr. Ravi Kiran Jain, as counsel for the appellants has been published in the cause list but he is not present to press the appeal. Heard learned AGA and perused the record. The instant appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15.2.1980 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in ST No. 323 of 1978 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur imposed a penalty of Rs. 2000/- against each of the appellants on the ground that they had been sureties for the accused Noor Hasan @ Noora in ST 323 of 1978 and the said accused misused his bail, consequently the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur fortified the bail bonds filed by the appellants and served notices calling upon them to show cause as to why the amount of bonds be not recovered from them as penalty. Both the appellants submitted their respective replies to the show cause notices. They instead of giving any explanation sought for time to deposit the amount of penalty. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, therefore directed the appellants to pay Rs. 2000/- each by way of penalty. Section 446 Cr.P.C. clearly provides that where a bond under the code is for appearance or for production of property before the court and it is proved to the satisfaction of the court or of any other court to which the case has been transferred that the bond has been forfeited, the court shall record the grounds of such proof and may make call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty or show cause why it should not be paid. Sub-section (2) of section 446 Cr.P.C. further provides that if sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the court may proceed to recover the same as if such penalty were a fine imposed under the code. Sub-section(3) of section 446 empowers the court to remit any portion of the penalty after recording reasons for doing so. In the instant case, the appellants were the sureties for the accused Noor Hasan @ Noora. The learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded a very categorical finding that the said accused abused the bail granted to him and failed to appear before the court. Consequently the bail bonds furnished by the appellants were forfeited in favour of the State of U.P. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, after forfeiting the bail bonds, issued show cause notices to both the appellants calling upon them to pay the penalty or show cause why it should not be paid. None of the appellants showed any sufficient cause. They merely sought 15 days' time to deposit the amount of bond in cash which is itself sufficient to hold that the appellants had no cause to submit and were willing to pay the amount of bond as penalty. In view of this factual aspect of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur imposing penalty on the appellants seems to be perfectly correct. It requires no interference by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.