KUTUB DEEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order of the District Magistrate, Mandi, in a case under Sec. 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby a surety bond executed by the Petitioner has been forfeited and he has been directed to pay the amount in easy instalments. Before the Magistrate First Class, Sundernagar, a case under Ss. 457 and 380, I.P. Code (State v/s. Triveni Upadhyaya) was pending, the accused was an employee of the B.S.L. Project, Sundernagar. The Petitioner Kutub Din stood surety for appearance of Triveni Upadhyaya. He executed a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ - accompanied by one surety -bond in the like amount. On the date fixed in the case, however, Triveni disappeared and since then he has been declared as absconding. Accordingly the bond of a appearance submitted by the Petitioner was forfeited initially in the entire amount and a notice to show cause was issued why the penalty be not imposed. The Petitioner appeared and raised a number of please before the Magistrate. These have also been duly considered by the District Magistrate in appeal. He submitted that the accused Triveni Upadhyaya was friendly to one Prem Paul Sharma and the latter was a friend of the Petitioner's son, as all of them were employed in the B.S.L. Project. In this manner, in order to help a friend the Petitioner at the request of his own son stood surety, little knowing that Triveni Upadhyaya would jump the bail and would become untraceable on the date fixed. The Petitioner further submitted before the Magistrate that he made quite a search for the absconding accused but could not find him at the address known to the Petitioner. He also stated that he is a poor farmer and in case the entire amount is forfeited it would lead to a penal consequence for the family. The learned Magistrate, it appears, forfeited the entire amount and the Petitioner came in appeal under Sec. 515 before the District Magistrate, Mandi. He was given a clue hearing and the amount of bond was reduced to Rs. 2,500/ - and a direction was given that he shall deposit the amount within two years in equal instalments. The learned magistrate had, however, ordered that in case the amount was not paid the Petitioner had to undergo civil imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The Petitioner has come up in revision, and the learned Counsel submitted that a composite order asking for payment of penalty as well as for internment of the Petitioner in prison could not be passed by the Magistrate under Sec. 514. For this it is to be noted that the District Magistrate, in appeal, has not passed such an order. The learned Counsel then submitted that the amount is yet excessive and may further be reduced. In the grounds of revision, however, it was mentioned that a notice to show cause was not given and adequate opportunity was not afforded to the Petitioner to put in his objections.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel and I have also perused the record. In my opinion, the bond stood forfeited no sooner the accused failed to put in appearance before the Court. Thereafter the law required that the Magistrate was to call upon the person bound by such bond to pay penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid. This procedure was also followed and cause was shown by the Petitioner. The Magistrate found that sufficient cause was not shown and therefore the bond was enforced and an order was made to recover the amount. However, it was mentioned that failing payment , the Petitioner was liable to imprisonment in a Civil jail for a term of six months. The learned Counsel has taken exception to the latter part of the order made by the learned Magistrate inas much as he directed for the payment of penalty and also failing that for imprisonment in the civil jail. In my opinion, such a joint order |neither prejudiced the Petitioner, nor can it be said to be illegal or improper so that interference is needed under revisional jurisdiction of a High Court. When sufficient cause has been shown and proper opportunity was afforded, that was the end of the matter. Either the penalty was to be paid, or, if not paid, the consequence was to follow, namely, the order by the court for imprisonment in the civil jail. If the learned Magistrate passed the joint order, nonetheless he directed the Petitioner to pay the penalty in the first instance. Only thereafter, failing payment of such penalty, he could be imprisoned in the civil jail. As such the Petitioner should have no grievance as against that order. That apart, the order of the District Magistrate does not, in any manner, indicate that the Petitioner has to suffer civil prison even though he does not pay the amount of Rs. 2,500/ -in easy instalments. Failing this payment, of course, the appropriate order regarding imprisonment may be passed by the Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be. At any rate, no exception in this regard can be taken in these revisional proceedings.