MOUJI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by Mouji Ram -appellant/surety challenging the orders dated 14.11.2000 and 24.03.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. FIR No.550 dated 27.06.1997 was registered against Sher Singh accused under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985. After his arrest, he was ordered to be released on bail on his executing personal bond in the some of Rs. 1 lac with two sureties of the like amount. In pursuance of that order, one of the surety bond in the said amount was furnished by the appellant/surety. The accused jumped bail as a result of which non -bailable warrants were issued against him and notices were issued to both the sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C. After the notice was served upon the appellant/surety, he appeared before the Additional Sessions Judge and sought time to produce the accused before the Court. Instead of producing the accused in Court, he himself absented and never appeared. While taking the proceedings under the said section, the Additional Sessions Judge imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lac upon the appellant/surety, vide order dated 14.11.2000. The appellant/surety filed an application for exempting the amount of penalty, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 24.03.2003.

(2.) IN the grounds of appeal, it has been contended by the appellant/surety that he had asked his counsel to withdraw the surety papers in the month of January, 1988 and he was assured by his counsel that those papers have been withdrawn but in fact the counsel had not processed to withdraw the surety papers. In pursuance of the notice, he appeared before the Court and explained his position. Without properly going through the facts and circumstances, the Court, in the absence of the appellant/surety imposed the penalty of Rs. 1 lac upon him. It has also been stated that the amount of penalty has already been deposited.

(3.) IT has been submitted by the counsel for the appellant that once a surety has made up his mind not to stand as such for the accused, he can withdraw the surety bonds so furnished by him and the trial Court is not competent to impose any such penalty. He also contended that the amount of penalty so imposed has already been deposited. The appellant is a poor person and has been able to deposit the penalty only after selling his land.