HARDEVA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case was fixed for orders on the stay application but it was taken up for hearing at the request of the learned counsel for the appellants, which was agreed to by the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. The accused Hardeva and Sahadeva were prosecuted in the court of Additional Sessions. Judge. Gangapur City. Each one of them furnished a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000.00 for their appearance before the aforesaid court. Dola appellant stood as surety for both Hardeva and Sahadeva and he also entered into surety bonds of Rs. 2,000.00 in respect of the each of the two accused. It appears from the record that the case was fixed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City on April 29, 1974 but the two accused failed to appear in that court on the aforesaid date. Thereafter, a notice was issued to them to show cause why the personal bonds furnished by each of them be not forfeited. A notice was also issued to Dola to show cause why the surety bonds furnished by him should not be forfeited. Dola surety was able to produce the two accused Hardeva and Sahadeva before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on May 24, 197.5. The two accused persons stood their trial and the learned counsel appearing for the appellants before me submits that they were subsequently convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City. In the proceedings relating to forfeiture of the personal bonds and surety bonds, learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated June 12, 3976 directed that the full amount of the personal bond i.e., Rs. 2,000.00 each of Hardeva and Sahadeva and the full amount of the two surety bonds furnished by Dola i.e., Rs. 4,000.00 be forefeited and that the aforesaid amount be recovered from these three persons.

(3.) Hardeva and Sahadeva and surety Dola filed the present appeal before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants advanced only one argument before me and urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not proper for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to forfeit the full amount of the personal bonds and the surety bonds. Learned counsel pointed out as mitigating circumstances that Hardeva and Sahadeva were uneducated villagers and they did not realise their responsibility in the matter. As regards Dola surety it has been submitted that he as a matter of fact helped the prosecution in tracing out the two accused and produced them before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on May 24, 1975. In Dwijendra Nath Chatterjee Surety Vs. Empero, AIR 1947 Cal. P. 120 it was held by their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court that if the surety appears in response to a notice and succeeds in producing the accused within a reasonable time, he is entitled to some consideration in the matter of enforcement of his bond. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view So far as Dola is concerned, I find that he has helped in securing the attendance of the accused by producing them before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for standing their trial and this circumstance should have been taken into consideration by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing an order forfeiting the two surety bonds. I am inclined to take a lenient view and impose a penalty of Rs. 200.00 for each surety bond i.e. Rs. 400.00 in all upon Dola surety instead of the sum of Rs. 4,000.00.