DAYAWANTI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a case bearing FIR No. 157 dated 21.9.1996, registered against one Sarwan Singh, a car make Fiat bearing registeration No. PB-03D/161 owned by Kewal Krishan, son of the petitioner, was taken in custody by the police during investigation. The said car was subsequently released on superdari to Dayawanti, petitioner herein, by the concerned court directing the owner of the vehicle to furnish a superdginama to the tune of Rs. 1.5 lacs with one surety of the like amount. The present petitioner stood surety for her son. It is so happened that on one date, when the proceedings were going on, the owner of the said car could not produce the car before the trial Court and consequently, vide order dated 8.8.1997, the superdginama was cancelled and forfeited to the State. Subsequently, the learned trial Court imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.5 lacs, the entire amount of superdginama, upon the present petitioner vide order dated 8.7.1998. Aggrieved by the said order, she then preferred an appeal, which also met with the same fate except that the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 8.2.2000 reduced the amount of penalty from Rs. 1.5 lacs to Rs. 1 lac. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Binderjit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.S. Bhandari, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. Records have also been perused.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid facts prays for a lenient view with regard to the quantum of amount of penalty. Learned State counsel, however, opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.