The court has the discretion to remit a portion of the penalty imposed on a surety, even after the bond has been forfeited, if the ends of justice require it.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 514(5) - SECTION 561A - SURETY BOND - FORFEITURE - REMISSION OF PENALTY - DISCRETION OF COURT - SUBSEQUENT ARREST OF ACCUSED - ENDS OF JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant, a surety for an accused charged under Section 65(a) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1849, sought remission of the penalty imposed on him after the accused jumped bail and absconded. The accused was subsequently arrested, and the applicant claimed that the amount of the bond was excessive and that he was unable to pay it.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the amount of the bond was not excessive and that the applicant had not shown that he was unable to pay it. However, the court found that the subsequent arrest of the accused was a circumstance that justified remitting a portion of the penalty. The court exercised its discretion under Section 514(5) and Section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code to reduce the penalty from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 10,000.
Issues: 1. Whether the amount of the bond was excessive? 2. Whether the applicant was unable to pay the penalty? 3. Whether the subsequent arrest of the accused justified remitting a portion of the penalty?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the amount of the bond was not excessive, considering the nature of the offence and the maximum sentence that could be imposed. 2. The court found that the applicant had not shown that he was unable to pay the penalty, as he had not provided any evidence to support his claim. 3. The court held that the subsequent arrest of the accused was a circumstance that justified remitting a portion of the penalty, as it meant that the accused's presence was secured and the trial could proceed.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application in part and reduced the penalty from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 10,000.

ORDER

1. This is an application by a surety and it raises a question which arises not infrequently for decision and is, therefore, of some importance.

2. One Shivraj S. Kapoor was arrested at about 9-30 p.m. on 27-9-1951, in connection with an offence under the Bombay Prohibition Act 1849. I am told the offence was one under Section 65 (a) of the Act.

Upon the applicant standing a surety for the accused for his appearance in the Court of law, Shivraj S. Kapoor was granted bail and was released. The bond executed by the applicant was lor a sum of Rs. 20,000. The obligation undertaken by the surety was to the effect that the accused would appear in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate or in the Court of any other Magistrate to which the case might be transferred on 28-9-1051, or on such other days that he might he thereafter required to attend to answer further to the charge pending against him until the case was finally disposed of by the Presidency Magistrate trying the case.

On 8-2-1952, a charge-sheet was presented by the police against the accused before the 16th Court and the case was transferred to the 13th Court on 24-10-1952. On February 10, 1953, the accused Shivraj S. Kapoor was convicted by the 19th Court in another case which was pending against him in that Court, and he was sent to jail custody to carry out the sentence of imprisonment which had been imposed upon him. On 20-3-1853, the accused Shivraj S. Kapoor preferred an appeal from his conviction and sentence and this Court enlarged the accused Shivraj S. Kapoor on bail.

After he was enlarged on bail, the accused Shivraj S. Kapoor absconded and this was at a time when the case against him under Section 65(a) of the Prohibition Act was pending in the 13th Court. It appears that between 10-2-1053, and 16-3-1953, he was produced before the 13th Court on several occasions, as many as 14 occasions.

2a. It so happened that on 20-3-1953, the accused Shivraj S. Kapoor did not appear because he had absconded and jumped bail and on 20-3-1953, the bond executed by the applicant was forfeited. Against the order of forfeiture made by the learned trial Magistrate, the applicant came up in revision before this Court, and that was by Criminal Revision Application No. 441 of 1953. That application was disposed of by the learned Chief Justice on 3-7-1953.

Several contentions were taken in that application, including the contention about the validity of the bond and also about the liability of the surety having come to an end and these contentions were rejected. Failing everything, the learned counsel for the applicant applied to the Court that the amount of the bond was a very large amount and that the same should be made payable by instalments, and the learned Chief Justice directed that the sum of Rs. 20,000 should be paid by four monthly instalments of Rs. 5,000 each, commencing from 17-8-1953, and the subsequent instalments to be payable on the 17th of each succeeding month.

3. It appears that on 16-9-1953, the first instalment of RSECTION 5,000 was paid, but that was not paid on the due date because the due date was 17-8-1953, and the instalment was paid just a day before the second instalment became due.

Before the payment of this instalment the accused had, it appears, been arrested on 23-7-1953. It is the case of the applicant that the accused Shivraj S. Kapoor was arrested because of the efforts which the applicant made and because of the information which the applicant gave to the police regarding the whereabouts of the accused.

4. The applicant then applied to the learned Magistrate, praying that by reason of the discretion vested in the Court under Section 514(5), Criminal P. C., the Court should remit the amount of the penalty or a substantial portion thereof in view of the circumstances mentioned in the application. The learned Magistrate rejected the application, and this rule is directed against the order made by the Magistrate on 18-9-1953.

5. Upon this application in re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis