SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(Ker) 87

T.L.VISWANATHA IYER
Kopparakandathil Narayanan – Appellant
Versus
The Dist. Collector, Kannur – Respondent


Judgment :-

Petitioners did not comply with the terms of the bail bond executed to ensure the attendance of the accused and in respect of which they stood sureties. The accused did not appear on a date fixed for hearing, whereupon the court forfeited the bail bond and directed the petitioners to pay a penalty of Rs. 1500/-. It would appear that the case was subsequently withdrawn; but proceedings for enforcement of the forfeited bail bond and payment of the fine of Rupees 1500/- were pursued under the Revenue Recovery Act (R.R. Act). The notices, Exts. P2 to P6 were issued to the petitioners. They are challenged on the ground that the amount cannot be recovered under the provisions of the R.R. Act.

2. Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down the procedure for forfeiture of bail bonds and for imposition of penalty. It further provides that the amount can be recovered as if it were a fine imposed by the Court. Section 421 lays down the modes of recovery of fine. To recover the amount, the court may issue a warrant to the District Collector authorising him to realise the amount as an arrear of land revenue from the movable or immovable property or both of the defa



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top