Judgment:
CRA-S-1682-SB-2014 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1682-SB-2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.7.2014 Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH PRESENT: Mr.Navdeep Monga, Advocate for the appellant.
R.P.NAGRATH, J.
(ORAL) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 10.7.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, imposing ` 50,000/- as penalty upon the appellant for forfeiture of the surety bonds which he furnished for appearance on each date of hearing in respect of accused Jalu Ram S/o Kosla Ram resident of village Bataru, Police Station Kira District Barmer (Rajasthan).There was recovery of 2 kgs of opium from Jalu Ram aforesaid in FIR No.161 dated 28.11.2008 under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Sardulgarh, District Mansa.
Jalu Ram aforesaid absented on 1.9.2012 when his personal and surety bonds were cancelled and forfeited to the State.
The appellant was served with the notice under Section 446 Cr.P.C.by the trial Court as to why the amount of ` 50,000/- as penalty Kataria Rishu 2014.07.14 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1682-SB-2014 (O&M) -2- be not recovered from him.
Despite the opportunities being granted, the appellant failed to show any sufficient ground nor the accused was produced.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Jalu Ram accused has since been declared proclaimed offender by the trial Court on 11.2.2013 and the file stood consigned to the record room.
Till today the accused has not been arrested nor produced.
It is, however, submitted that the accused belongs to a place in the State of Rajasthan whereas the appellant himself belongs to a village in district Mansa.
It is also contended that the amount of penalty may be remitted to a considerable extent as even the police has not able to nab the accused.
In view of the fact that accused has not been arrested nor produced before the trial Court so far in case of a serious offence, I do not find any justification to remit any portion of penalty.
For the reasons stated above, the instant appeal is dismissed.
Since the main appeal has been dismissed on merits, there is no need to pass specific order on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 213 days' delay in filing the appeal.
July 11, 2014 ( R.P.NAGRATH ) rishu JUDGE Kataria Rishu 2014.07.14 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document