OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 29.3.2004 whereby the appellant has been ordered to pay a penalty of Rs.20,000/- in the proceedings under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Cr.P.C.').

(2.) Appellant-Om Parkash stood surety for accused Parveen Kumar in case FIR No.90 dated 26.5.2003 under Section 326, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC), Police Station Radaur, on 30.8.2003 and executed the surety bond for the sum of Rs.20,000/-. Said Parveen Kumar absented from the proceedings of the case on 16.2.2004. The show cause notice was issued to the present appellant which was served upon him through affixation of notice at his house but he did not appear in response to the said notice. So, the impugned order was passed by the learned trial Court imposing a penalty of Rs.20,000/-

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is a poor person. Accused Parveen Kumar had surrendered before the trial Court within two months and was again admitted to bail vide order dated 4.6.2004. Thereafter, he faced the trial. The main case has already been disposed of vide judgment dated 2.3.2005. He pleaded that the penalty imposed by the learned trial Court is highly excessive and disproportionate to the default.