PHOOL SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the orders dated 28.10.91 and 11.2.92 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, in Cr. Misc. Case NoAI91. It is a cryptic order. Notices issued against the accused as also his surety were served. The surety failed to appear on the date fixed and the trial Court ordered forfeiture of surety bonds.

(2.) SHRI Sharma also made an application for review or reconsideration of the order of forfeiture, but the said application was also dismissed vide order dated 13.2.92.

(3.) SHRI Sharma contends that the notice issued was a defective on inasmuch as it called upon the petitioner (surety) to show cause against the behavior of the accused for whom the petitioner had stood as surety. This resulted in either misleading or confusing the petitioner. Be that as it may, in view of the judgment of the trial Court dated 13.10.92 passed in S.T. No. 169/88 acquitting the accused and furthermore there was no willful negligence on the part of the petitioner (surety) to keep the accused back from trial. He had no opportunity to show cause against the forfeiture. The impugned order cannot be allowed to stand and it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside.