Virender Singh, J.@mdashThere is a delay of 14 days in filing the instant appeal, for which notice of motion has already been issued to the State vide order dated 17.1.2005.
2. Pursuant to notice, Mr. D.S. Brar, learned Assistant Advocate, Haryana has put in appearance.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application and there being no serious objection from the side of the State, delay of 46 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Criminal Misc. application No. 3232 of 2005 is consequently disposed of.
Appeal admitted.
4. Order dated 17.1.2005 also indicates that the notice was also issued for staying the operation of the impugned order.
5. Since it is a short matter, I intend to dispose of the main appeal itself.
6. Sher Singh Appellant stood surety for one Wazir son of Lakhmi Chand in a case FIR No. 486 dated 4.6.2000 u/s 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station City Karnal on 7.5.2004 when the accused Wazir failed to appear before the trial Court, his bail bond was cancelled and forfeited to the State. Notice u/s 446 Code of Criminal Procedure was accordingly issued to the Petitioner. The surety bond was of Rs. 50,000/-. Ultimately vide order dated 27.9.2004, the Appellant was ordered to pay a penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. Warrants of recovery of the said amount was also sent to the Collector, Karnal.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant has filed the instant appeal.
8. I have heard Mr. Vinay Juneja, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. D.S. Brar, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. The available record has also been perused by me.
9. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the penalty has been imposed upon the Appellant mainly on the ground that after the notice was issued to him, he did not appear inspite of the service and the Court presumed that the Appellant had nothing to say to the show-cause notice already issued to him. The learned Counsel while explaining the stand of the Appellant states that since Wazir Singh accused was again arrested on 21.5.2004 in some other case registered as FIR No. 74 dated 6.3.2003 under Sections 394/392/397/216-A, 120/B, 412 IPC, the Appellant though that he would be called through production warrant of the Court and as such the Appellant did not appear on 27.9.2004 pursuant to the notice of the Court issued on 7.5.2004. While drawing my attention to the order dated 21.5.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal which is reproduced in para No. 4 of the grounds of appeal, the learned Counsel states that the impugned order is arbitrary and very harsh in its nature.
10. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Counsel contends that the impugned order be set aside.
11. In the alternative, the learned Counsel contends that the amount of penalty be reduced to a reasonable amount as the Appellant is a very poor man and is unable to pay the same.
12. In support of his arguments Mr. Juneja relies upon a judgment rendered in Inder Lal v. State of Punjab, 1981 CLR 316 and another judgment rendered in Babu Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1991(3) RCR(Crl.) 245.
13. The learned State counsel has, however, opposed the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant.
14. Without entering into detailed discussion and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the amount of penalty is reduced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. It is so ordered.
15. It is, however, made clear that the Appellant is given one month time from today to deposit the aforesaid amount (Rs. 10,000/-) before the trial Court or the Collector, Karnal who is executing the warrant of recovery. In case the said amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, then in that eventuality the warrant of recovery of the entire amount of penalty as imposed by the learned trial court shall remain in force.
16. Since I am granting one month time to the Appellant for depositing the reduced amount of penalty, it would be most fair if the proceedings of execution of warrant of recovery, are kept in abeyance till that period. So ordered.
Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed except with the modification as indicated above.
Appeal dismissed.
