IMPORTANT POINT
A surety cannot be penalized without being given a show cause notice and without the trial court recording grounds for forfeiture, as per the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. N.S. Shekhawat J.: - The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to set aside the order dated 13.11.1999 passed by the Court of Sh. Gurnam Singh, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby a penalty of Rs.50,000/- i.e. the amount of surety bond, was imposed on him and the same was ordered to be recovered from him as arrear of land revenue.

2. As per the case set up by the prosecution, on 26.08.1999, Baljinder Singh accused was granted the concession of interim bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount and was directed to surrender before the Trial Court on 24.09.1999.The appellant and one more person namely Meet Singh had stood sureties for Baljinder Singh in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each. However, on 24.09.1999, Baljinder Singh did not surrender in the Court and his bail bonds and surety bonds were cancelled and forfeited to the State and was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants. However, notice was issued to the appellant and another surety to produce Baljinder Singh, accused. As per the prosecution, the appellant and another surety were given opportunities and they could not produce Baljinder Singh, accused. Ultimately, they were directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- each as penalty i.e equal to the amount of the surety bond.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact, Baljinder Singh, accused was granted the concession of interim bail vide order dated 26.08.1999 in case FIR No.78, dated 28.07.1999, under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Garhshankar. On 26.08.1999, he was granted interim bail by the Trial Court and was directed to surrender on 24.09.1999. However, he did not appear before the Trial Court and on 16.10.1999 non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against him. Since non-bailable warrants issued against Baljinder Singh, accused were received back unexecuted, the proclamation was issued against him on 30.10.1999 and was declared as proclaimed offender on 13.12.1999. Thereafter, the orders were issued for attachment of his property and the warrants for his arrest were also issued. At this stage, a report was received that Baljinder Singh, accused had been detained in Central Jail, Ludhiana in some other case and he was produced before the Trial Court on 09.09.2000 from Central Jail Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that since Baljinder Singh, accused was confined in Central Jail, Ludhiana in some other case and this fact was not within the knowledge of the appellant as well as the Trial Court. Consequently, the appellant could not produce the accused and no fault can be attributed to him. Learned counsel further contends that even in the present case, neither any show cause notice was ever issued to the appellant as to why his surety to the tune of Rs.50,000/- be not forfeited nor any satisfaction was recorded by the Trial Court before forfeiting the bond, in the present case. Learned counsel further contends that the Court was under a legal duty to record the grounds of proof of forfeiture of the bond and a show cause notice should have been issued to the appellant as to why the surety amount should not be forfeited. After issuance of notice, if sufficient cause has not shown by a surety, the Court may impose penalty on the surety. He further refers to the law laid down by the Allahabad High Court in the matter of “Mahmood Hasan and Another Vs. State” criminal appeal No.2610 of 1975, decided on 01.08.1979, wherein it was held as follows:-

“The record does not show that before forfeiting the surety bonds the Court below gave any notice to the appellants to show cause as to why the surety bonds be not forfeited. The rule of natural justice requires that before any adverse order is passed the person concerned should be given an opportunity of being heard. No such opportunity wa