KALU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under S. 449 Crimial P.C. against the order of learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, dated 4-1-1989 in a matter under S. 446 Crimial P.C. Appellant Kalu is facing trial in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhalawar for offence under S. 429 I.P.C. He was released on bail and the trial proceeded. He did not appear in the Court on 6-9-1988, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge directed the proceedings to be drawn under S. 446 Cr.P.C. Accused Kaluram filed a reply to the notice and submitted that since he suffered from typhoid on 6-9-1988 he could not appear in the Court. He subsequently went to the Court and found that there was strike of the employees and no work was being done. It was submitted by him that he never wanted to remain absent but the circumstances compelled him to do so.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is true that neither the medical certificate has been filed nor an affidavit in support of the reply filed by Kaluram, but at the same time I find that the accused did not remain absent for long and it does not appear from the record that he had an intention to abscond. In these circumstances it will be extremely harsh if the entire amount of personal bond and the surety bond is forfeited in the case like the one. The cases where the accused absconds or deliberately tries to delay the proceedings by remaining absent for several months or years, then the court may be justified in realising the entire amount of bonds but in the cases like the one where court otherwise was handicapped due to employees strike on subsequent dates and the accused appeared soon after resumption of work in courts his case requires sympathetic consideration. In my opinion in such cases deduction of 10% amount of the bond should meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed and the order is modified to the extent that amount of Rs. 500.00 each from the personal bond and the surety bond shall be forfeited and an amended warrant for recovery of the amount may therefore, be issued. Appeal partly allowed.