PHUMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short), has been filed against the order dated 28/4/1993, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby, the petitioner has been imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,000/- in proceedings under Section 446 Cr. P.C. on account of his failure to produce the accused in Court of the trial Magistrate.

(2.) Case titled Harpreet Singh alias Gulla v. State, was pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate II Class, Hoshiarpur, in pursuance of First Information Report No. 79 dated 29/11/199 1, for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, City Hoshiarpur. The petitioner stood surety for the accused. The accused absconded from the proceedings and, therefore, notice was issued to the petitioner being the surety on 27/2/1992. The petitioner took time to produce the accused. However, despite repeated opportunities, he was unable to produce him in Court. He himself did not turn up on many dates. Thereafter, non-ailable warrants against the accused were issued and the petitioner was also summoned for 4/9/1992 by the trial Magistrate vide his order 4/8/1992. He did not turn up and again notices were issued. Ultimately, the petitioner appeared in Court on 17/12/1992 and requested for 15 days time for filing his reply. Besides he undertook to produce the accused in Court. Time was allowed on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and he was directed to produce the accused on or before 2/1/1993. On his request, Dasti warrants were also given against the accused for executing the same on the accused. Thereafter, the warrants remind unexecuted. Then another date was given to the surety for producing the accused on Court. However, he was not produced. Accordingly, the learned trial Magistrate vide his order dated 25/1/1993, keeping in view the facts and circumstances that the petitioner is an aged person and despite notice given to him he could not produce the accused, he was imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,000/- and he was directed to deposit the penalty amount on or before 1/2/1993 and also produce the accused before the said date.

(3.) Against the aforesaid order dated 25/1/1993, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur in which apart from pleading that the procedure prescribed under Section 446 Cr.P.C. had not been followed, he also stated that the petitioner was aged 65 years and had made sincere efforts for producing the accused. Besides, the amount of penalty imposed was disproportionate to the offence involved as the accused was facing trial for the theft of two tyres only. The learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide his order dated 24/8/1993 dismissed the appeal and he found no case to be made out warranting interference by him. Hence the present revision against the said order dated 24/8/1993.