Khursheed Begum and anr. Vs. State

Khursheed Begum and anr. vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Mar 31, 1992

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/692952

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/692952
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: V.B. Bansal, J.
Decided On: Mar 31, 1992
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1991
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

In the instant case, there was a default in appearance by the accused and penalty was imposed on surety without asking him to show cause - It was held that unless the surety failed to show sufficient cause, the Court was not authorized to recover the amount of bond as a fine imposed under the Criminal Procedure Code...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 446

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Khursheed Begum and anr.

Advocate K.K. Sud,; Rakesh and; K.P. Sood, Advs

Respondent

State

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 446
Cases Referred: Shashi Kant v. State
Reported In: 48(1992)DLT207

Excerpt

in the instant case, there was a default in appearance by the accused and penalty was imposed on surety without asking him to show cause - it was held that unless the surety failed to show sufficient cause, the court was not authorized to recover the amount of bond as a fine imposed under the criminal procedure code, 1973 - the court also set aside the impugned order and the matter was remanded for reconsideration. - - the law is well settled that before a penalty could be imposed on a surety and after the forfeiture of the bail bond, the sureties have to be called upon to pay the amount of penalty and show cause why it should not be paid......each to the state in case of default in appearance before the court. however, the accused absented and non-bailable warrants against the said accused remained un-executed. bail bonds were forfeited and penalty has been imposed upon the petitioners vide impugned order dated 4th july 1991. (3) learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there has been a violation of the mandatory provisions by the learned trial court inasmuch as no opportunity has been given to the petitioners to show cause against the imposing of the penalty after the order of forfeiture and impugned order has been passed, imposing the penalty simultaneously while forfeiting the bonds. (4) a perusal of the impugned order fully supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to advance any arguments in this behalf. the law is well settled that before a penalty could be imposed on a surety and after the forfeiture of the bail bond, the sureties have to be called upon to pay the amount of penalty and show cause why it should not be paid. if sufficient cause is, thereafter not shown and penalty is not paid the court is authorised to recover the amount as if such penalty were a fine imposed by it under the code of criminal procedure. reference in this regard can be made to a case shashi kant v. state : 43(1991)dlt622 . (5) in these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. the learned trial court, however, may proceed further against the petitioners in accordance with law. (6) as a result, the appeal is accepted. the impugned order is set aside. appellants to appear before the trial court on 24th april 1992.

Full Judgment

V.B. Bansal, J.

(1) By way of this application the petitioners have challenged the order dated 4th July 1991 of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi thereby imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 lacs on each of them.

(2) Counsel for the petitioners states that the allegation against the petitioners has been that they stood sureties for Khial Asghar and undertook to pay Rs. 2 lacs each to the State in case of default in appearance before the Court. However, the accused absented and non-bailable warrants against the said accused remained un-executed. Bail bonds were forfeited and penalty has been imposed upon the petitioners vide impugned order dated 4th July 1991.

(3) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there has been a violation of the mandatory provisions by the learned Trial Court inasmuch as no opportunity has been given to the petitioners to show cause against the imposing of the penalty after the order of forfeiture and impugned order has been passed, imposing the penalty simultaneously while forfeiting the bonds.

(4) A perusal of the impugned order fully supports the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the respondent has not been able to advance any arguments in this behalf. The law is well settled that before a penalty could be imposed on a surety and after the forfeiture of the bail bond, the sureties have to be called upon to pay the amount of penalty and show cause why it should not be paid. If sufficient cause is, thereafter not shown and penalty is not paid the Court is authorised to recover the amount as if such penalty were a fine imposed by it under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reference in this regard can be made to a case Shashi Kant v. State : 43(1991)DLT622 .

(5) In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The learned Trial Court, however, may proceed further against the petitioners in accordance with law.

(6) As a result, the appeal is accepted. The impugned order is set aside. Appellants to appear before the Trial Court on 24th April 1992.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1992 Same Parties Khursheed Begum and anr. vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge V.B. Bansal, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 446

Criminal