RAMAKANT SIMOPURUSKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal arises out of the Order dt. 25th Mar. 1988, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Panjim, allowed the application filed by the State praying that the amount of the bond entered by the appellant should be forfeited to the Government.

(2.) THE relevant facts are as under :-A criminal case for offences punishable under Ss. 20 (b) and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was filed against one Hamid Roza Sharmrow. Hamid was enlarged on bail on the sum of Rs. 10,000/- the appellant having stood as a surety to secure the presence of the accused in Court at the time of the inquiry or trial. However, when the matter came up for hearing, Hamid failed to appear in Court, and therefore, the appellant was directed to produce him in Court on a particular date. Appellant applied for time, and thrice, the Court extended the time for producing the accused, and as he ultimately failed in that, a notice was given to him to show cause as to why the amount of the bond should not be forfeited to the Government. The learned Sessions Judge did not find the reasons given by the appellant satisfactory and hence, by his impugned Order dt. 25th Mar. 1988 forfeited the amount of the bond to the Government and directed the appellant to forthwith pay the said amount in Court.

(3.) MR. R. V. Kamat, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contends before me that the impugned Order is not sustainable and is bound to be set aside. He submits that a bond is a contract between the Court and the surety, and therefore, the bond should be precise in its terms for being enforceable. In particular, the bond should incorporate in unmistakable terms the date on which the accused person is to be produced in Court. In the present case, the surety, bond signed by the appellant is vague and ambiguous in nature as no specific date was mentioned in the said bond to produce the accused. Therefore, the learned counsel further contends placing reliance on 'dr. Chimanlal Dharamdas Shah v. State', 1987 Cri LJ 2002 (Bom), the said bond is not enforceable with the result that the impugned order is invalid. He further contends that in any event, the Court should reduce the amount of the bond, considering that the appellant is a motorcycle driver and has no sufficient means to pay the amount of the bond.