KHUBI AND PURAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Sec. 449 Cr, P.C, directed against the judgment of Addl. Sessions Judge, Dholpur who ordered the forfeiture of the complete amount of personal bond and surety bond for the absence of the account in the court on 25.9.85.

(2.) The accused was facing trial along with three persons since, 1985. The case was fixed for evidence on 25.9,85 on which date the appellant Khubi was not present. It was told that he had stomach ache and, therefore, he is unable to attend the court. As against this complainant Ram Singh told the court that the accused does not want to appear in the court on the date as he does not want that his daughter Mst. Shamo should be examined, hence his absence is delebrate. The learned Judge issued the non-bailable warrant and the accused was arrested on the same day and produced before the court on the next day. His explanation of stomach ache was found to be false by the learned, Judge and directed the recovery of the total amount of the personal bond and the surety bond. Both, the accused and his surety came in appeal. None appeared for the petitioner even on last date of hearing and learned counsel for the petitioners did not appear today also. However, I have perused the order of the learned Judge and the memo of petition. A perusal of the record shows that accused had remained absent only on one day of hearing and was actually apprehended on the same day. It appears that he had only absented himself in the past and did not intend to abscond Whatever may be the reason for his absence, it cannot be ruled out that it may be under some wrong advise tendered to him. Be that whatever it may, I feel that in the circumstances of the case forfeiture of the total amount of the bonds would be excessive and the ends of the justice would most if the amount of forfeiture of the bonds is, reduced from Rs. 1000.00 to Rs. 250.00 and same amount is recoverable from the surety.

(3.) Consequently the appeal is partly allowed. The order of forfeiture is maintained but the amount is reduced from Rs. 1000.00 each to Rs. 250.00 each. The warrant of recovery shall be amended accordingly. Before concluding would like to express my displeasure on the conduct of the learned counsel for the petitioner who has not chosen to appear in the court regularly on two dates of hearing when the case has been shown in the cause list and his name has also been shown therein. The case has been called out thrice on each date and if the learned counsel had to withdraw from the case then too courtesy demands that the learned counsel should inform the court and seek permission to withdraw. Appeal Partly allowed.