SURINDER CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common questions of law and fact have arisen in the two Criminal Appeals No. 123 of 1991 and 124 of 1991 out of a common order dated 12 -7 -1991 passed in proceedings under section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, as such both these criminal appeals can be conveniently disposed of together.

(2.) Rajinder Chauhan, the appellant, in the latter appeal was prosecuted for the commission of the offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and under section 420/114 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge. Shimla, wherein he was released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000. The other appellant, Sh. Surinder Chauhan, in the formers main case, had furnished surety bond in the like amount. The bonds were furnished in respect of the appearance of the accused on all dates fixed by the Court below.

(3.) On 10 -4 -1991 accused Rajinder Chauhan absented, therefore, bail bonds furnished by him as also by his surety were ordered to be forefeited in favour of the State of Himachal Pradesh Notices under section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were ordered to be issued to both, to show -cause as to why the amount of the bonds be not recovered from them as penalty. Respondent filed their replies to the show -cause notice issued to each one of them. The common ground of defence taken by them is that accused Rajinder Chauhan mis -took the date of hearing in the main criminal case against him for 10th May, 1991 instead of 10th April, 1991 and the absence was that of bonafide mistake and was not wilful or intentional.