SHER BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7960-M of 1987 as well as Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5509-M of 1988 as both these petitions pertain to quashment of the orders resulting from non-compliance of the terms of 'Sapurdginama' executed by Sher Bahadur Singh petitioner. In the Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5509-M of 1988 the petitioner seeks quashment of the First Information Report got registered against him by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib, for an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegations that he having failed to produce Truck No. PUG-6174 as per terms of his 'Sapurdginama' he has misappropriated the same while in the other petition the petitioner claims quashment of the order of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate as well as of the Sessions Judge qua the forfeiture of the amount of Rs. 80,000/- of 'sapurdginama' of the truck on account of his failure to produce the same before trial Court.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that Dhani Ram Khanna depicting himself to be owner of the truck bearing Registration No. PUG-6174 lodged a complaint for offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code qua the theft of this truck against Anil Kumar son of R.N. Kaushal. During the pendency of those proceedings the truck was released by the trial Court on 11.4.1975 on executing 'sapurdginama' by Sher Bahadur Singh in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- undertaking to produce the truck before trial Court. Dhani Ram complainant went in revision against that order before the Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 1.10.1975 accepted the Revision Petition of the complainant and directed the release of the truck to Dhani Ram complainant on furnishing requisite bonds etc. Sher Bahadur Singh failed to produce the truck before the trial Court for its delivery to Dhani Ram complainant which resulted in filing application dated 20.9.1985 by the complainant against Sher Bahadur Singh. The trial Court gave notice to Sher Bahadur Singh petitioner for showing cause as to why the forfeiture amount of 'sapurdginama' may not be recovered from him as penalty under the provisions of Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ultimately after hearing the parties forfeiture amount of Rs. 80,000/- was ordered to be realised as penalty by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved against that order, the present petitioner went in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Ropar which was dismissed on 30.4.1987.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.