NAURATA SINGH Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of the order dated 2.6.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby he affirmed the order dated 27.3.1995 passed by the District Magistrate, Chandigarh, vide which the surety bond of Rs. 50,000/- furnished by the surety-petitioner had been forfeited and the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount in the Government Treasury.

(2.) THIS petition had been filed on 26.7.1995, when the learned counsel for the surety-petitioner relied upon the authority reported as Kaku v. State of Haryana, 1995(1) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 479 : 1994(3) RCR(Crl.) 617 (P&H) to contend that as per the provisions of Section 3(1)(a) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short, the Act), a prisoner could be called upon to execute a bond, which could not exceed Rs. 20,000/- and on that basis, notice was issued to the Standing Counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh and proceedings regarding the recovery of the said amount were stayed. The case was, thereafter, taken up on various dates, but the same could not be heard for some reason. The case came up for hearing on July 5, 1995 and was adjourned to July 24, 1996, as the petitioner's counsel was not present. It was further taken up after several years i.e. on March 5, 2003 when again the petitioner's counsel was not present and once again, the case was adjourned for today. Even today, the petitioner's counsel is not present and the letter issued to the counsel for the petitioner has been received back un-delivered with the report that Mr. D.D. Verma, Advocate has not been found in the Bar Room. Be that as it may, it is an obligation of the counsel to take care of his case. The matter has been pending for the last several years and there being a stay in favour of the petitioner since 1995, I have thought it fit to proceed with the matter even without the presence of the learned counsel.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, Naurata Singh preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. The primary argument raised by his counsel was that he had been condemned un-heard and without notice. This argument was repelled by holding that a notice had been issued to Naurata Singh and a reply had been filed by him and he had sought time to trace the convict and it was only on his inability to do so that the District Magistrate had passed the order dated 27.3.1995.