Back
2012 Supreme(P&H) 351
2012(2) RCR(Cri) 528
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J
Gurdev Kaur & others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & another - Respondents
Crl.Revision No.1514 of 2010 (O&M)
Decided on : 01.03.2012
For the Petitioners: None.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
The estate of the deceased surety is liable to clear the liability of the forfeited surety bond.
Headnote:
Surety Bond - Forfeiture - Section 446 Cr.P.C. - The court upheld the order of forfeiture of the surety bond, ruling that the estate of the deceased surety is liable to clear the liability of the bond. The court found that the forfeiture order directly operates against the estate of the deceased surety, and the petitioners, as the legal representatives, are liable to clear the liability of the bond.
Fact of the Case:
Sukhwinder Singh was convicted and released on parole, but failed to return to jail. Proceedings were initiated against the surety, Sarban Singh, who later died. His legal representatives challenged the order of forfeiture of the surety bond.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the estate of the deceased surety is liable to clear the liability of the bond, and rejected the arguments raised in the grounds of the criminal revision.
Issues: The main issue was whether the legal representatives of the deceased surety were liable to clear the liability of the forfeited surety bond.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 446(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, ruling that the estate of the deceased surety is liable to clear the liability of the bond, as the forfeiture order directly operates against the estate of the deceased surety.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal revision, upholding the order of forfeiture of the surety bond and ruling that the legal representatives of the deceased surety are liable to clear the liability of the bond.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J
1. One Sukhwnder Singh was convicted in a case FIR No.39 dated 10.08.2003 under Sections 302/364/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Talwandian, District Kapurthala, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide judgment dated 10.03.2005 and while undergoing life imprisonment. He was ordered to be released on parole of four weeks. He was ordered to be released on furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/-.
2. One Sarban Singh (Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants) had furnished the surety bond on 3.3.2006 for the release of the aforesaid convict on parole of 04 weeks. He was released on 10.04.2006 and was to return to jail on 09.05.2006. Since the aforesaid Sukhwinder Singh did not surrender on expiry of the parole period, proceedings against the surety/appellant were initiated under Section 446 Cr.P.C. He submitted his reply which was not found satisfactory and vide impugned order dated 12.07.2006, was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/-Thereafter, he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/-in the Government Treasury by the District Magistrate.
3. Sarban Singh aggrieved against the order of the District Magistrate, Kapurthala, filed an appeal on 8.8.2006. During the pendency of the appeal, Sarban Singh died on 30.08.2007. His LRs (petitioners) were brought on record in the proceedings before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. Before the appellate authority, petitioners did not raise any objection that the order of the District Magistrate, directing to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/-suffers from any illegality. The only contention raised was that they were not liable to pay the amount in question. The said appeal was dismissed by the aforesaid Court vide judgment dated 13.11.2009. While passing the aforesaid order, the Additional Sessions Judge, observed as under:-
“For the sake of repetition, it is again clarified that there is no dispute between the parties regarding the facts of the present appeal and the facts upon the basis of which the District Magistrate has passed the order under appeal. Convict was undergoing life imprisonment. He was released on parole for four weeks, he he has not returned to the Jail. As such, it is a matter of grave concern. The only forceful contention being raised by the counsel for the appellant is that as per the authority cited above, the appellant is not liable to pay the amount in question. But the fact remains that the fcts of the cited authority, are distinguishable from the facts of the present appeal. Perusal of the cited authority shows that in the surety bonds furnished int eh case of cited authority, there was no condition regarding the reporting back of the convict to the Jail after the expiry of 20 days temporary release. But perusal of the present surety bonds furnished by the present appellant Sarban Singh, shows that under condition No.3, he has undertaken that during his release on parole , convict will not violate the terms of the parole and on the expiry of parole period, he will return to the jail in time. As such, in this case, the appellant is bound by the terms and conditions of the surety bonds. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is liable to deposit the surety amount in the Government Treasury.
Although, counsel for the appellant has submitted that a lenient view may be taken, but the fact remains that in this case, convict Sukhwinder Singh was to serve life imprisonment in a murder case. During his Jail term, he was released on bail, but he has not returned to the Jail after the expiry of parole period. As such, no question to take a lenient view arises.
As per above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed, being without any merit. Trial court record alongwith a copy of this judgement, be sent back forthwith and appeal file be consigned to the Record room.
Pronounced in open Court.
Dated 13.11.2009”
4. The instant revision
