MD. KASHIM MIA Vs. ADMINISTRATION OF MANIPUR
LAWS(GAU)-1958-9-1
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on September 11,1958

Md. Kashim Mia Appellant
VERSUS
Administration Of Manipur Respondents

JUDGEMENT

T.N.R. Tirumalpad, J.C. - (1.)THIS is a petition to revise the order of the learned District Magistrate in Criminal Appeal No. 1 Order 1958, by which he confirmed the order of penalty passed against the petitioner by the E.A.C. in Misc. Case No. 18 Order 1958.
(2.)THE facts which gave rise to this petition are as follows:
The Criminal Case - -G. R. Case No. 405 Order 1954 out of which the Misc. Case No. 18 Order 1958 arose originated from a private complaint filed in June, 1954, against one Manir Ahamad and R. K. Amusana Singh, under Section 420 I. P. C. The case dragged on from June, 1954 to November, 1957 and underwent nearly 70 adjournments for one reason or other. For most of those hearings, both the accused who were on bail were present. It is found from a perusal of the order sheet that a few of those adjournments were necessitated by the absence of one or the other of the accused on the ground of illness. If a criminal case is dragged on in this fashion for a period of over 3 -1/2 years, it is not surprising that one or the other accused would fall ill and would be unable to appear on some of the adjourned dates.

It happened Order 5 -10 -57 that the accused Manir Ahamad was absent on the ground of illness. Then Order 7 -11 -57, the Court disqualified his bailor and directed fresh surety in a sum of Rs. 5,000/ -. It was then that the petitioner herein stood surety and agreed to produce the accused Manir Ahamad before the Court on every date of hearing and on default to forfeit to the Government the sum of Rs. 5,000/ -.

Subsequently, the case again under -went as many as 21 adjournments between 7 -11 -57 and 9 -8 -58, some of them being on the ground that the Magistrate was absent on casual leave; others being on the ground that the '"Prosecuting Sub -Inspector was absent and still some others because the other accused R. K. Amusana Singh was absent and the Head Constable had misled the Court with a faked report and action had to be taken against the said constable. The point to be noted is that during all the 21 hearings the accused Manir Ahamad was being produced by his bailor regularly for every hearing and the case did not have to undergo any adjournment on the ground of the absence of Manir Ahamad.

(3.)ORDER 9 -8 -58, the case was posted for letting in defence evidence and on that date Manir Ahamad was absent and a petition was filed at 11 -00 a.m. by one Md. Siddique, the son of the petitioner on behalf of Manir Ahamad stating that the latter was suffering due to a sudden attack of colic pain and as such he was quite unable to appear before the Court and that the bailor was also attending to the treatment of the said Manir Ahamad. The Court then ordered that the application filed by a 3rd party without a medical certificate be rejected and that non -bailable warrant should issue against the accused for 11 -8 -58 and notice to the bailor. Accordingly, a notice was issued to the petitioner stating that by the non -appearance of the accused Order 9 -8 -58 the bailor had forfeited the sum of Rs. 2,000/ -and he was called upon to pay the said penalty or to show cause by 11 -8 -58 why payment of the said sum should not be enforced against him.
On 11 -8 -58, the accused was brought under arrest. The petitioner was also present. The Court then ordered that the bailor did not take any steps to produce the accused Order 9 -8 -58, that the petition for adjournment was filed by a 3rd party without any locus standi and that the bail bond has already been cancelled.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.