SODHI RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the order dated 19.3.1996, passed by the Additional Sessions, Judge, Hashiarpur, whereby the order dated 13.2.1996, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate imposing a penalty of Rs. 7000/- upon the petitioner was modified and the amount of penalty was reduced to Rs. 4000/-.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner stood surety for the accused Balbir Kumar in case FIR No. 133 of 1987, registered at Police Station Hoshiarpur, for the offences under sections 325/323/34, IPC. The said accused absented from the Court as such a notice was issued to the petitioner. As per report of the Police Station, the petitioner refused to accept the service and consequently an ex parte order was passed on 13.10.1993 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby a penalty of Rs. 7000/- was imposed upon the petitioner. He moved an application before the said Magistrate stating therein that no service had been effected upon him and that the accused has already been acquitted on account of a compromise having been effected between the complainant party and the accused persons. This application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 13.2.1996 (Annexure P.2). The petitioner went in appeal before the Court of Sessions and the penalty amount was reduced to Rs. 4000/- by the Additional Sessions by his impugned order dated 19.3.1996 (Annexure P.1). The petitioner has approached this Court under section 401 of the Code.

(3.) THE Court may, at its discretion remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only." No indication is to be found in this provision as to the circumstances under which the Court will be justified in making an order in conformity therewith. The purpose of a surety bound is to secure the presence or the attendance of the accused and the position of a surety is nearly always not an easy one. The surety makes himself responsible for the conduct of the accused and often enough the surety has no control over the conduct of the accused. The surety expects the accused to act properly but the accused, often enough, does not choose to stand by the surety and sometimes jumps bail and this is exactly what has happened in the present case.