S HIRANYAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this matter has come up for hearing on the question of admission, since I find that it can be disposed of finally at this stage itself, I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned HCGP for respondent and perused the records.

(2.) This is an appeal by surety. Appellant was the surety for accused No. 2 in S.C. 85/90 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shimoga. Since, at a particular stage of the proceeding, he failed to keep present the accused No. 2, a miscellaneous case was registered against him in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 292/95 and a show cause notice was issued. After the surety appeared and bearing him, the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order dated 2-8-1996 directing issue of a fine, levy warrant against the surety for recovery of the surety bond amounting to Rs. 5,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, surety has come up with this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant took me through the impugned order dated 2-8-1996 recorded in the order sheet itself by the learned Sessions Judge. It is not clear from the order whether the surety who was the respondent in the miscellaneous case, had filed his written objections or not. It is seen from the order that no opportunity was given to the respondent-surety to adduce his evidence in support of his objections. It appears from the order that he made some oral submissions.