PRITHVI RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.92, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh, by which the learned Additional Session Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and maintained the order dated 6.6.89 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh.

(2.) ONE jeep bearing No. PUW -8 -601 was seized in a criminal case, which, on the application filed by the petitioners, was given to them on Supurdginama on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ - with one surely in the like amount. The surety bonds and the Supurdginama were furnished by the petitioners. As per the bonds, they were required to produce the jeep in the Court on each and every date of hearing. They, also, furnished the bond to the effect that the jeep in question will not be sold during the pendency of the proceedings. The petitioners could not produce the jeep on the dates fixed for the production of the jeep and sold the same during the pendency of the case. As the jeep could not be produced, trial Court ordered for the forfeiture of the amount of the bonds and ordered for the recovery of the full amount thereof. Notices were issued to the surety and the petitioners. They filed their reply and the learned trial Court considered the application moved by the petitioners under Section 446(3) Cr.P.C. and rejected the same by his order dated 7.3.89. No appeal against that order was filed by the petitioners, by which the application under Section 446(3) Cr. P.C., moved by the petitioners, was rejected and that order became final. The proceedings for recovery of the amount were thereafter undertaken. When the recovery -proceedings were in progress, another application was moved by the petitioners under Section 446(3) Cr. P.C., which was also, dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 6.6.89. Dissatisfied with the order dated 6.6.89, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh (Camp Suratgarh) which was dismissed by him by his order dated 12.10.92. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the appeal, observed that the jeep in question was sold by Prithvi Raj and others without any prior permission from the Court and a case under Section 406 I.P.C. was also, instituted against him, which is pending and, therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly ordered for the forfeiture of the amount of the bonds, i.e., the Supardginama as well as the surety -bonds. It is against this order dated 12.10.92, that the petitioners have preferred this revision petition.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.