RAM CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who was surety of accused in the case FIR captioned above, on his failure to produce the accused, as such penalty of Rs.one lac was imposed upon him and due to non-payment of penalty amount, he was sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 months vide order dtd. 31/10/2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, has come up before this Court by filing the present appeal.

(2.) The counsel for the appellant submits that he was unable to produce the accused in the Court, therefore penalty was imposed upon him and in default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months. Counsel for the appellant further submits that appellant has no money to deposit, the Court should consider this aspect. The trial Court exercise its maximum power to sentence the appellant in default of payment. Further appellant himself admitted his failure in non-production of accused. Counsel further submits that he would be contented and satisfied if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him, which is 2 months and 22 days as per custody certificate dtd. 13/2/2025, out of six months of simple imprisonment.

(3.) Normally this Court has to assess the merits of the case, but in the present case, the conviction is because of the non-production of surety/accused, who had absconded and for which the appellant, who had stood as surety for Rs. 1,00,000/- which he could not deposit, was convicted. If he would have been rich, he would have certainly deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- instead of curtailing his liberty by staying in jail. This fact itself shows that appellant was befooled to stand as a surety.