Back
2011 Supreme(Chh) 182
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J.
GIRDHARI LAL - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF M.P. (NOW C.G.) - Respondent
And
RAM PRASAD - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF M.P. (NOW C.G.)- Respondent
Decided on: 20-6-2011
Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate, for the Appellants.
Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate, for the State.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the bonafide conduct of sureties and their sincere efforts to assist in the arrest of the accused, which discharged them from liability of payment of penalty.
Headnote:
Surety - Criminal Law - Section 302 IPC - [Section 302 IPC] - The court discussed the liability of the sureties of an accused in a criminal trial and the efforts made by the sureties to produce the accused before the court. The court emphasized the bonafide conduct of the sureties and their sincere efforts to assist in the arrest of the accused, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the penalty imposed on the sureties.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, who were sureties for the accused in a criminal trial, were penalized for the default of appearance of the accused. The accused had remained absent, and the sureties contended that they made bonafide efforts to produce the accused before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sureties had made sincere efforts to assist in the arrest of the accused and that their conduct was bonafide. The court set aside the penalty imposed on the sureties.
Issues: The main issue was whether the sureties were liable for penalty due to the default of appearance of the accused in the criminal trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sureties' explanation, supported by the material available in the records, was sufficient to discharge them from liability of payment of penalty. The court emphasized the bonafide conduct of the sureties and their sincere efforts to assist in the arrest of the accused.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order imposing penalty on the sureties was set aside.
1. These appeals have been filed against a common order dated 28th of June, 1994 passed in Misc. Judicial Cases (Criminal) No(s) 1/90 & 2/90 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has imposed the penalty of Rs.10,000/- upon each appellant after rejection of their plea against the show-cause issued to them on account of default of appearance of accused-Chhattar Singh in Sessions Trial No. 96/88 for whom they stood as sureties. The above Sessions Trial is still pending as the accused has not been arrested till date.
2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:
Chhattar Singh is the sole accused in Sessions Trial No. 96/88 of the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. He was prosecuted u/s 302 IPC. The 2 appellants are the sureties of accused-Chhattar Singh in Sessions Trial No. 96/88. They executed surety bonds of Rs.10,000/-each on 12.9.86. Appellant-Ram Prasad is father of accused-Chhattar Singh and appellant- Girdharilal is real brother of accused-Chhattar Singh. Chhattar Singh participated in proceedings of Sessions Trial till November, 1988. Thereafter he remained absent on many occasions and ultimately on 29.3.89 a warrant of arrest was issued against him and proceedings against sureties (appellants herein) were drawn. Show-cause notices were issued to the appellants in their separate proceedings and replies were filed by them. The appellants took stand that they tried their best to get the accused produced before the Sessions Court, but they failed; the accused was once arrested in connection with preventive case No. 35/92 u/ss 151, 107 & 116(3) Cr.P.C. of the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Durg; On the report of appellant- Girdharilal, he was arrested in that case on 1.4.92 and remained in jail upto 17.4.92. The arrest of the accused was reported by the police to the Sessions Court by memo dated 2.4.92, but during this period he could not be produced before the Sessions Court and ultimately he was released on bail in the said case. The contentions of the appellants were that they had made all efforts for arrest and production of the accused in Sessions Trial No. 96/88, their conduct was bonafide, therefore, no penalty should be imposed against them.
The learned Sessions Judge after considering the replies of the appellants, rejected their contentions and held that the appellants were liable for penalty. The Sessions Judge, therefore, imposed the penalty of Rs.10,000/- each (the full amount of surety bonds executed by the appellants) against the appellants and directed for recoveries in accordance with law.
3. Mr. Uttam Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no reasonable ground to impose penalty on the appellants. Appellants were quite vigilant. As soon as the accused met appellant-Girdharilal, he tried to take him to the Court; and on denial and quarrel he made a report to the police on which a preventive proceeding was drawn and he was taken into custody, but even after that he could not be produced before the concerned Sessions Court. Therefore the conduct of the appellants as sureties was quite bonafide.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Satish Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the order passed by the Sessions Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Misc. Cases as also Sessions Trial No. 96/ 88.
6. The appellants are father and real brother of accused-Chhattar Singh. The accused was prosecuted in a case u/s 302 IPC. The appellants executed surety bonds of Rs.10,000/- each for release of the accused in the said sessions case giving undertaking to produce the accused on all hearings of the trial. The records of the sessions case would show that after releasing on bail on the surety bonds furnished on 12.9.86, the accused c
