MANGILAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contention of the counsel for the appellant is that Court below is having power to reduce the recovery of surety amount as a penalty as per Provision under section 446 sub-section 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and dismiss the application of the appellant without showing any valid and cogent reason for not exercising its discretion in favour of the appellant either by exonerating him from depositing remaining amount of Rs. 16,000/- or reducing the amount as a penalty as ordered to be paid. Learned counsel has submitted that main accused Pappanlal has already been acquitted by the trial Court. On the other hand, Mr. Upadhyaya, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State has submitted that final order was passed on 30.11.2004 and thereafter, the appellant sought time to deposit the remaining amount, therefore, he could not file the application for exoneration or reduction of the amount of penalty.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned trial Court has jurisdiction as per provision under section 446 of sub-section (3) of the CrPC, to reduce the amount of surety which was ordered to be recovered as a penalty. Though this provision is discretionary but the learned trial Court should exercise its discretion judiciously and while dismissing the application of the appellant, the trial Court should show in its order as to why the discretion was not exercised in favour of the appellant either by fully exonerating him or by reducing the amount of penalty. The surety has already deposited Rs. 4,000/-. He also remained in Civil Jail for two months and the accused for whom he stood as surety, has already been acquitted by the trial Court are the grounds which could be considered by the trial Court at least for reducing the amount which was required to be paid by the surety, learned trial Court has not assigned any valid reason for not exemciology the discretion in favour of the appellant.

(3.) THUS , this appeal is allowed in part. Now appellant is directed to deposit only Rs. 2,000/- in the trial Court on or before 25th of February, 2005. Failing which trial Court shall take necessary steps for the recovery of this amount in accordance with law. In the result, this appeal stands allowed in part in the terms indicated hereinabove.