NARATA RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMCHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of all the criminal revision petitions, seven in number, as a common question of law and fact has arisen. Also, petitioner in all the cases is the same.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that in a criminal case State v. M. S. Khan and others, under Section 452 of the Penal Code, S/ Shri M. S. Khan, Sat Dev Singh, America Prashad, Chhaju Chauhan, Mehesh Prashad, Moti Lal and Harinder Chauhan were facing trial in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat, District Solan. The petitioner, Narata Ram had stood surety for each one of the seven accused and had executed the surety bond, undertaking that he would see that the accused appear on every date of hearing in the case in the Court and in case any default was made in that respect, he would be bound to pay Rs.5000.00 (Rupees five thousands) as penalty. All the seven accused have abscond ed and are not being served.

(3.) A notice was, accordingly issued to the petitioner for the production of all the accused persons on 25/05/1992. He showed his inability to do so. The surety bond to the tune of Rs.2,000.00 (Rupees two thousands) of the petitioner in respect of each of the seven accused, were forfeited to the State. Seven show-cause notices were issued under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner did not, file reply. The petitioner again could not produce either of the accused-persons despite opportunities having been given to him to product them. The learned Magistrate, vide his order dated 1/07/1992, imposed penalty of Rs. 2000/upon the petitioner in respect of each one of the surety bonds.