LAWS(P&H)-1991-3-204

AMAR NATH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On March 06, 1991
AMAR NATH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Bharat Bhushan was admitted to bail in a case under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Amar Nath, appellant furnished surety in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- for the said accused. The accused absented himself from the Court on 26.9.1989. Notice was issued to the surety who took time, made efforts and eventually produced the accused on 9.3.1990. Vide order dated 13.3.1990, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,000/- being the amount of the surety bond and it is against that order that the present appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that it has not been correctly mentioned in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal that the accused Bharat Bhushan was arrested in pursuance of warrant of arrest. In this connection, learned counsel referred to the detailed statement made by Amar Nath on 13.3.1990 in which he stated that he made efforts and had produced the accused Bharat Bhushan in the Court on 9.3.1990. Learned counsel also pointed out that the surety was a poor person having no property movable or immovable and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no penalty should have been imposed. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel. The surety made genuine efforts and produced the accused in the Court. Learned counsel also pointed out that the appellant remained in jail for about one month as he was not in a position to pay the amount of penalty. Having regard to the facts and circumstances brought out by the learned counsel namely, that the appellant produced the accused by making efforts and that he had already undergone about one month in connection with his inability to pay the penalty, the amount imposed as penalty is setaside and the appeal is allowed to that extent.