BAKHTAWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are that one Sarbjit Singh, who had been arrested in a case under section 411, Indian Penal Code, was admitted to bail on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 6000/ - with one surety in the like amount. The present petitioner Bakhtawar Singh had stood surety for Sarbjit Singh. After the bonds were accepted, Sarbjit Singh was released on bail However, Sarbjit Singh did not appear in Court on 5th September, 1981 and the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon, in whose Court he was being prosecuted, cancelled the bail bond. Notice was issued to the petitioner to produce the accused but he did not produce him. Thereafter a notice was given to him to pay the amount of the bond or to show cause why it should not be so paid. In reply to the notice given to him, Bakhtawar Singh made a statement in Court and also examined R. W. 2 Hamir Singh, stated that he had good relations with Tarlochan Singh, father of Sarbjit Singh. To the same effect, is the statement of R.W. 2 Hamir Singh. The learned trial Court ordered the surety to pay the full amount of the bond i. e. Rs. 6000/ -.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. He partly accepted the appeal and reduced the amount of penalty to. Rs. 3000/ -. The petitioner has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner only prayed for reduction of the amount of penalty and I think his prayer should be accepted. Sarbjit Singh was only standing trial In a case under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. For forfeiting the amount of the bond, the nature of the offence said to have been committed by the accused, is to be considered. It was also not disputed before me that the quantum of penalty imposed should bear some co -relation to the circumstances present in a case. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that his client had become surety for Sarbjit Singh as the latter's father was his friend and as is clear from the file he had made efforts to produce the accused but could not trace him. He further pointed out that the petitioner is a poor person and penalty imposed is on the harsher side.