A K VERMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 against the Order dated 22-6-1985 made by Additional Sessions Judge, shivpuri in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 12/1982, whereby direction has been issued for the recovery of the surety amount forfeited, by the attachment and sale of the moveable property belonging' to the surety, as provided under Section 421, ibid.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that appellant Ashok Kumar Verma s/o radhakrishna Verma, r/o Kolaras, district Shivpuri had stood as a surety for accused harcharan in Sessions Trial No. 41/1982, but he failed to produce him on the date given by the Court, which was 2441-1982. Accordingly, the surety-bond of Rs. 2,500/-furnished by surety-appellant Ashok Kumar Verma was forfeited by the Court on that date. A notice was directed to be issued to the surety to show cause as to why the forfeited amount may not be recovered from him However, despite grant of many chances for the purpose the notice could not be served on the surety. By his report dated 11-3-1983, the serving officer reported that the surety had left Kolaras for good and had started living at Shivpuri. Notice was repeated for service. By the report dated 28-1-1984, the serving officer reported that surety Ashok Kumar had absconded for the last nine months. Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 22-6-1985, the learned Additional sessions Judge held that it was not possible to serve the surety. It appears that he dispensed with the service, forfeited the entire amount of Rs. 2,500/- and directed recovery of the same by the coercive process provided under Section 421, Code of criminal Procedure.

(3.) WHILE in course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the provisions of Section 446, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which lays down the procedure, when bond has been forfeited. It lays down that when a bond has been forfeited, the Court may issue a notice to show cause to the surety as to why the forfeited amount should not be paid by him. Sub-section (2)of Section 446 provides:-