SUKHMANDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to the present Revision petition filed by Sukhmander Singh, and another against the State of Punjab may be, briefly, noticed. Naranjan Singh, petitioner No.2, who was accused in the case 'State v. Naranjan Singh' under section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, jumped bail and a proclamation was ordered to be issued against him to enforce his appearance in Court. Sukhmander Singh petitioner had stood surety for the presence of petitioner No.2 on all dates of hearing in the Court A show cause notice was issued to Sukhmander Singh petitioner, but he failed to appear in response thereto. His surety bond was forfeited and he was ordered by the judicial Magistrate First Class, Moga, to pay a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was directed to be recovered by attachment of his movable property. So far as Naranjan Singh petitioner No.2 is concerned, a notice under section 446, Code of Criminal Procedure, was served upon him by affixation in consequence thereof, he was burdened with a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- recoverable by attachment and sale of his movable property.

(2.) THE two petitioners filed an appeal against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, on the ground of limitation. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not accept the plea of the petitioners that they had learnt about the order imposing penalty upon them, on February 8, 1985, after which date they obtained certified copy of the order and filed the appeal. The main consideration which weighed with the lower appellate Court is that the notice issued to Sukhmander Singh petitioner for appearance in Court on January 4, 1985 was served upon him on that very date, and hence he ought to have appeared in Court on that date. This is not a correct approach to the matter. There is nothing on the record to show at what time exactly the said notice was served upon Sukhmander Singh on January 4, 1985. For all we know, the notice may have been served upon him after the Court hours. It is not disputed that after his absence on one date of hearing, Naranjan Singh accused petitioner had put in appearance before the trial Court, which accepted his explanation for his default and ordered his release on bail again. In view of this circumstance, the delay in the filing of the appeal by the two petitioners, was not very material and ought to have been condoned. The appeal should have been disposed of on merits.