Arvind Malot Vs. State of Rajasthan

prize chits and money circulation scheme act. 1978 - sections 3/4 and criminal procedure code--section 446--forfeiture of surety--validity of--accussed and surety of different states--accused jumped bail and absconded--held, there are no sufficient grounds to remitforfeited money.;the petitioner was very well knowing that the said accused persons were residents of different states still then he, for the reaons best known to him, stood surety for them who jumped bail and absconded.;the petitioner has miserably failed to show any sufficient and reasonable ground for remitting the forfeited amount of surety bonds executed by him.;petition dismissed - - 3. petitioner, despite ample opportunity, failed to produce those accused persons nor he disclosed sufficient reasons for not producing them. the petitioner was very well knowing that the said accused persons were residents of different states still then he, for the reaons best known to him, stood surety for them, who jumped bail and absconded. the petitioner has miserably failed to show any sufficient and reasonable ground for remitting the forfeited amount of surety bonds executed by him......not be traced.2. heard, perused the orders passed by the learned lower courts. the petitioner stood surety for accused r. mohanraj and p. swami and executed surety bond of rs. twenty thousand in respect of each accused. the said accused persons were facing trial for the offence under section. 3/4, prize. chieats and money circulation scheme act, 1978, in the court of learned cjm, banswara and they absented themselves on 15.10.93. hence the surety bonds executed by the petitioner as also the personal bonds of the accused persons were forfeited and notice under section 446 cr. p.c. was issued against the pettioner.3. petitioner, despite ample opportunity, failed to produce those accused persons nor he disclosed sufficient reasons for not producing them. the petitiner only argued that the being a second grade teacher, a sympathetic view should be taken and forfeited amount be remitted.4. the learned cjm vide his order dated 15.6.94 forfeited the surety amount and directed the petitioner to deposit the said amount. the learned sessions judge, banswara vide his judgment dated 12.1.95 dismissed petitioner's appeal. the petitioner was very well knowing that the said accused persons were residents of different states still then he, for the reaons best known to him, stood surety for them, who jumped bail and absconded. the said accused persons were facing trial for the offence of cheating the public at large under the aforesaid act. the petitioner has miserably failed to show any sufficient and reasonable ground for remitting the forfeited amount of surety bonds executed by him. in my considered opinion, the learned lower courts have not committed any illegality and the impugned orders passed by them are absolutely correct, legal and apporpriate and do not warrant any interference.5. hence this petition being deviod of any force and substance, is hereby dismissed. a copy of this order be sent to the learned cjm, banswara for compliance.