Madho Vs. State

Madho vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided May 23, 1951

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/752573

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/752573
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Atma Charan, J.C.
Decided On: May 23, 1951
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

- - The surety also could not toe blamed because he did his level best to see that these facts were brought to the notice of the Court concerned.

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Madho

Respondent

State

Legal References

Reported In: 1952CriLJ1379

Excerpt

- - the surety also could not toe blamed because he did his level best to see that these facts were brought to the notice of the court concerned.orderatma charan, j.c.1. heard the parties.2. the only question that arises in this application in revision is whether the entire penalty due under the surety bond forfeited be realized or not under section 514, cr.p.c. the perusal of the record of the trial court shows that on the day in question the accused was lying ill in the victoria hospital at aimer and that after his discharge therefrom he was taken in custody in another criminal case and was lodged in the central jail at ajmer. the surety bond, in the circumstances, rightly stands forfeited. it was however, beyond the control of the accused to have presented himself before the court concerned on the day fixed for the disposal of the case. the surety also could not toe blamed because he did his level best to see that these facts were brought to the notice of the court concerned. there is thus no reason as to why a lenient view in the matter be not taken and the entire penalty remitted under section 514(5), cr.p.c.3. the application in revision accordingly is allowed, the order of the trial court directing that the penalty due under the surety bond be realized in full is set aside and the entire penalty is remitted under section 514(5), cr.p.c.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Atma Charan, J.C.

1. Heard the parties.

2. The only question that arises in this application in revision is whether the entire penalty due under the surety bond forfeited be realized or not Under Section 514, Cr.P.C. The perusal of the record of the trial court shows that on the day in question the accused was lying ill in the Victoria Hospital at Aimer and that after his discharge therefrom he was taken in custody in another criminal case and was lodged in the Central Jail at Ajmer. The surety bond, in the circumstances, rightly stands forfeited. It was however, beyond the control of the accused to have presented himself before the court concerned on the day fixed for the disposal of the case. The surety also could not toe blamed because he did his level best to see that these facts were brought to the notice of the Court concerned. There is thus no reason as to why a lenient view in the matter be not taken and the entire penalty remitted Under Section 514(5), Cr.P.C.

3. The application in revision accordingly is allowed, the order of the trial court directing that the penalty due under the surety bond be realized in full is set aside and the entire penalty is remitted Under Section 514(5), Cr.P.C.

Same Parties Madho vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Atma Charan, J.C.

Criminal