K RAJ REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein was surety for the accused in C.C. No.162 of 1986 on the file of, the Judicial First Class magistrate, Gajwel, Medak district. THE learned Magistrate by his order dt.17-10-1990. in Crl.M.P.Nos. 545 and 546 of 1990 has imposed a penalty of Rs.4,000/- and issued a warrant of attachment for sale of movable properties of the petitioner for realisation of the said amount under Sec.446 Cr.P.C. THE same was assailed by the petitioner in Crl. Appeal No.41 of 1990. THE learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dt.21-3-1991 modified the said order and reduced the penalty amount to Rs.2,500/-. As against the order of the learned Sessions Judge in Crl. Appeal No.41 of 1990, the above revision has been preferred by the Petitioner.

(2.) WHEN a person stood as surety and executed a bond the duty of that person is much more than one that has been facing the trial. From 1986 till 1990 the case could notbe disposed of by the learned Magistrate. The lower appellate Court took pains to take note of all the docket orders from time to time and came to the conclusion that the petitioner surety has not discharged his duty that has been cast upon him and that it is only on the failure of the surety's duty the trial court could not dispose of the case. It should be noted that it is only when, the compromise has been effected between the petitioner and the opposite party, the petitioner made his appearance in the Court. It also indicates that till the compromise was effected the accused were not present in Court and the sureties must be aware of the same. WHEN the learned Magistrate has imposed a fine on the surety for not complying with the conditions laid down and the same has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, it is neither desirable nor proper for this Court to interfere with the order tender revision. What is more, it is the duty of the surety who offers bail in any case to any accused to see that he attends the Court for every adjournment to facilitate the trial court to dispose of the case expeditiously. The Criminal Revision case is therefore dismissed.