iqbal Singh Sunder Singh Vs. State

.....or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - .....order(1) this is a revision petition by iqbal singh who stood surety in a bail-bond in the sun of rs. 1,000 filed by one amar singh who was an accused in a case under section 160, indian penal code.(2) it appears that amar singh failed to appear at a hearing of the case and when his bail-bond was ordered to be forfeited and a notice was issued to the surety to show cause why the amount should not be realised from him he did not even then appear and the learned magistrate passed the order for the recovery of rs. 500 from him. his appeal was dismissed by the learned additional district magistrate.(3) the only plea raised before me is for the reduction of the amount to be recovered from the petitioner and the ground advanced appears to me to be reasonable. it was pointed out that the offence for which amar singh was being tried was only under section 160, indian penal code, which deals with affrays, the maximum sentence being one month's imprisonment or a fine of rs. 100, and ordinarily in such a case the sentence would only be a small fine.it seems to me that in a case of this nature it is not necessary for any court to fix the bail amount at anything like the sum of rs. 1,000 or even rs. 500, the amount which the petitioner has been called upon to pay, and the nature and the seriousness of the offence of which the accused is being tried ought always to be borne in mind by the court while fixing the amount of bail. i am therefore of the opinion that the bail amount fixed in the present case in the first instance was very excessive and in the circumstances i reduced the amount to be paid by the petitioner to rs. 100.(4) order accordingly.