MOOLA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by Moola Ram under Section 449 Cr. P. C. against an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, dated March 1, 1977, by which the appellant's application under Sub-section (3) of Section 446 Cr. P. C. for remission of the penalty sought to be recovered from him under the bond for appearance was rejected on the ground that acceptance of such an application would amount to review of the previous order dated July 3. 1976, for recovery of the whole of the penalty.

(2.) THE short facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated as follows:

(3.) THE appellant was being tried in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Bikaner for offences punishable under Sections 364, 324 etc. , of I. P. C. During the pendency of the trial bail was granted to the appellant. The appellant frunished his personal bond in the amount of Rupees 5000/ -. One Ishwar Ram stood surety for the appellant and filed his surety bond in the like amount for appearance of the appellant in the Court. On September 17, 1975, the appellant did not appear in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Bikaner, and, consequently, his bail bonds were forfeited and warrant for his arrest and production in Court was issued. Notice was ordered to be issued to the appellant and his surety to pay the penalties under the bonds or to show cause why the amounts of the bond filed by them be not realised from them. It appears from the record that the appellant and his surety did not turn up in court to pay the penalties under the bonds or to show cause why they should not be paid. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, passed an order on July 3, 1976 that the whole of the penalties under the bonds be recovered from the appellant and his surety. Thereafter, the appellant presented an application to the court of the Sessions Judge presumably under Section 446 (3) Cr. P. C. for remission of the penalties under the bonds. The Sessions Judge rejected the application and refused to hear him on the ground that he was not empowered to review his previous order dated July, 3, 1976. Aggrieved by the rejection of his application, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Court, as stated above.