KISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KISHAN Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, Annexure P/1, and the order passed by District Magistrate, Jalandhar Annexure P/2.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Jaspal Singh son of the petitioner who was undergoing imprisonment was allowed temporary release on parole for 28 days on 13.9.1988 on his furnishing the requisite surety bonds. The surety bond was furnished on his behalf by the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The convict was to surrender before the jail authorities on or before 13.10.1988. He, however, did not surrender on the date fixed and thereafter a notice was served on the petitioner to show cause as to why the amount of bond should not be forfeited. The petitioner admitted that he furnished the surety bond but showed his inability to produce his son. The amount of the bond was, thus, forfeited and he was directed to deposit the amount within one month, by District Magistrate, Jalandhar vide his order dated 12.3.1990. Against this order Kishan Singh-petitioner filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, on 15.1.1992.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner had already availed the remedy of a revision against the impugned order and the second revisions was barred under the provisions of Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner could not assail the same order under the garb of invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In support of his contention the learned State counsel placed reliance on the case of Rajan Kumar Machananda v. State of Karnataka, 1990 (Supplementary) Supreme Court Case 132, wherein it was observed :-