DANMAL AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was taken up for hearing today with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The principal submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that an order directing forfeiture of the amount of surety bonds was passed by the learned District Magistrate, Jaisalmer without giving notice to the petitioners and the whole amount of the surety bonds was directed to be forfeited without any justification.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the petitioners Danmal and Topumal entered into surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000.00 and Rs. 40,000.00 respectively on Dec. 28,1972 having admitted receiving possession of she-camel. However, the surety bonds were ordered to be forfeited by the learned District Magistrate, Jaisalmer without giving due notice to the petitioners to show cause why the surety bonds be not forfeited. If such notices would have been given, it would have been open to the petitioners to submit their explanations and to show cause before the learned Magistrate as to why the petitioners were unable to produce the she-camels. The petitioners could have also produced some evidence in support of their explanations.