A.K. MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal appeal filed under Section 449, Cr.P.C. and has been directed against the order dated 3.12.1997, passed by the Court of Shri N.K. Bansal, Special Judge, Patiala, who cancelled and forfeited the bail bonds of the appellants in favour of the State and issued non-bailable warrants against them with notice to the sureties as to why the amount of sureties be not realized from them.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Sarvshri A.K. Mukherjee and M.P. Singh along with others are facing trial under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the trial is pending before the court of the Special Judge, Patiala. On 3.12.1997, both these appellants became absent without any prior information. However, the counsel appearing on behalf of these appellants moved an application for the exemption of their personal appearance in court on the ground that both of them were suffering from fever, but no medical certificate from any doctor was attached with that application. Even on the previous date prior to 3.12.1997, Shri A.K. Mukherjee, appellant, was absent and an application for exemption of his personal appearance was filed and was allowed but on 3.12.1997 only an application was moved by the learned counsel for the appellants. The Special Judge came to the conclusion that both the appellants had absented themselves without any reasonable cause, so their bail bonds were cancelled and forfeited to the State. It may also be mentioned that on 3.12.1997 witness Shri S.C. Aggarwal was present but on account of the non-appearance of the appellants, the said witness had to be discharged. Aggrieved by the order dated 3.12.1997, the present appellants have filed the present appeal.

(3.) THE learned senior counsel Shri Mittal had assailed the impugned order dated 3.12.1997 mainly on the ground that no finding has been given by the learned Special Judge in the impugned order that the absence on the part of the appellants was intentional. It was further argued that before forfeiting the personal bonds and surety bonds of the appellants, no notice was given to them and in these circumstances, the order dated 3.12.1997 is bad in the eyes of law. On the contrary, the impugned order has been defended by the State on the ground that the appellants have violated the terms of the bonds as they had undertaken that they would appear on each and every date of hearing. They did not appear on 3.12.1997. Even one of them did not appear on the previous date of hearing. The application which was moved before the Special court on behalf of the appellants was not accompanied by any medical certificate so as to come to the conclusion on the part of the learned Special Judge that the absence of the appellants was not wilful. In these circumstances, the order is fully justified.