SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to revision petition are that the present petitioner Surjit Singh had stood surety in the sum of Rs. 4,000/- for one Ram Lubhaya, who had been arrested in a case under the Opium Act. On the acceptance of the bail bonds, the accused was released on bail. Ram Lubhaya did not put in appearance in the court on 16th August, 1979 and the learned trial Court ordered that he be summoned through non-bailable warrants for 30th August, 1979. The bail bond was also concelled. On 30th August, 1979 the accused was again absent. The warrants had not been issued by the Court. The Court ordered issuance of fresh warrants against the accused and notice to the petitioner for 21st September, 1979. For 21st September, 1979 neither the accused nor the surety was served. The Court ordered the issuance of fresh non-bailable warrants against the accused. Warrant of attachment of the land of the petitioner was also issued. For a couple of hearing neither the warrant of arrest was executed against the accused nor the attachment of the land of the petitioner was effected. On 14th August, 1980 the Court ordered that the accused be summoned through proclamation under section 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code). Notice was also ordered to be issued to the petitioner. The case was adjourned to 29th August, 1980. Service of the petitioner was effected for that date. On that date the petitioner did not appear. The Court passed an order imposing penalty of Rs. 4,000/- upon the petitioner. Relevant portion of that order reads as follows :- "A large number of notices were sent to the surety for his service but he was not served. Warrants of attachments of the property of the surety were also issued to compel him to appear in this Court but the warrants of attachment sent to the Revenue authorities were also received back unexecuted with some frivolous explanations. A notice had also to be given to the learned Controller. The respondent was served for today through Kirpal Singh S.I./S.H.O., P.S. Sadar, Jullundur. The respondent has not appeared despite service. Therefore the inference arises that he has nothing to say in this matter. Accordingly a penalty of Rs. 4,000/- is imposed upon the respondent/surety on account of surety amount of Rs. 4,000/-. Warrants of recovery be issued for 10.9.1980."

(2.) FEELING aggrieved against the above order the petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. He did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. Still feeling not satisfied, the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after the court is satisfied that the bond has been forfeited, the court has to call upon the person bound by the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid but in the present case no such notice was issued to the petitioner to pay the amount of the penalty or to show cause why it should not be so paid. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the notice which was served upon the petitioner for 29th August, 1980 and pointed out that the contents of the notice are not in accordance with the law. That notice issued to the petitioner is in Gurmukhi and when translated into English it reads somewhat so follows :-