BALANDU Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of both the above titled petitions arising out of a common judgment dated 20.12.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Una, Camp at Amb in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3 and 4 of 2010, whereby the order dated 8.1.2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Amb, in the proceedings under Section 446 Cr. P.C., imposing penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/ - upon each of the petitioners by forfeiting the surety bonds, has been affirmed and the appeals dismissed.

(2.) THE principal accused in the case is Alaf Deen. He was tried for the commission of an offence, punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, however, ultimately acquitted of the said charge. The prosecution though assailed the judgment of acquittal by filing an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Una, however, unsuccessfully. The revision preferred in this Court also met the same fate. The record reveals that during the pendency of the appeal, the case property, i.e. the truck, bearing registration No. HIU -1837 impounded by the police during the course of investigation was ordered to be released to the registered owner, i.e. the principal accused Alaf Deen, on furnishing his own bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - with two sureties in the like amount undertaking specifically to produce the same as and when called upon to do so. Both the petitioners stood surety to ensure the production of the vehicle in question by the principal accused, as and when required to do so by the Court.

(3.) LEARNED trial Judge found that the truck was tampered with being not in the same condition when it was ordered to be released to the accused. Anyhow, till that stage both the petitioners were not party either before the High Court or before learned trial Judge. It is after production of the truck by the principal accused Alaf Deen, the proceedings under Sections 446 Cr. P.C. were ordered to be initiated against both of them. They were served with show cause notice. In response thereto, their stand was that the truck was produced by the principal accused in the trial Court on 10.7.2000 and the custody thereof handed over to the police. Therefore, the show cause notice issued against them was sought to be discharged and the proceedings dropped.