JAGTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question of law involved in this petition is, whether a surety, whose bond has been forfeited and who is unable to pay the penalty, can be sentenced to imprisonment?

(2.) THE brief facts are that Gambhir Singh was arrested for being in possession of five kilograms of illicit opium. He was allowed to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two like sureties, one of them being Jagtar Singh. Gambhir Singh jumped bail. The surety bond executed by Jagtar Singh was also forfeited and he was directed to pay the full penalty of Rs. 10,000/-, but Jagtar Singh stated that he did not own any moveable or immoveable property to discharge the liability. In consequence, the Magistrate ordered that the ends of justice would be met if Jagtar Singh was sentenced to imprisonment for three months' R. I. under Section 421 read with Ss. 424 and 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal filed by Jagtar Singh was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala. Hence, he has preferred the present revision petition.

(3.) IN order to show that the impugned order is not sustainable, learned Counsel for Jagtar Singh pointed out that formerly, Sub-section (4) of Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old) provided that if the penalty was not paid and could not be recovered by attachment and sale of the property of the person liable, the Court could order imprisonment of the said person in civil jail for a term which could extend to six months. Reference was then made to the following observation of the Law Commission in its Forty-first report: We feel that imprisonment in civil jail in these circumstances is out of accord with modern thinking and propose to omit Sub-section (4 ). Accordingly in the corresponding Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (new) no provision was made for the imprisonment of the person liable to pay the penalty.