NIRMALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of five Criminal Appeals No. 1323 to 1327-SB of 2007 preferred by Nirmala widow of Jagdish (since deceased) against the State of Haryana, as a common question of law and fact is involved therein.

(2.) THE facts are gathered from Criminal Appeal No. 1323-SB-2007. These are: Jagdish (deceased), the husband of the appellant stood surety for accused Fateh Singh son of Sohan Pal, resident of village Barwala District Panchkula in FIR No. 207 dated 29.9.1998 under Section 392, 395, 396 and 397 of IPC, Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula. He expired later on. During the course of trial, Fateh Singh jumped over the bail. He was declared a proclaimed offender. The learned trial Court on 12.2.2003 in proceedings under Section 446 of the Code Criminal Procedure against Jagdish in Case No. 7/Misc., ordered that the surety bonds stood forfeited to the State and since Jagdish surety has expired, warrants for attachment of property mentioned in the surety bond be issued for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 25000/- as penalty. The appellant is little aware of the fact that he stood surety in the aforesaid F.I.R. nor had the knowledge that the order dated 12.2.2003 has been passed. She has come to know about the same when the warrants for attachment of the property have been issued by the Collector, Panchkula to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. She being a poor lady is not in a position to pay the amount of penalty. At no time, the notice was issued either to her or the legal representatives of the deceased by the learned trial Court nor an opportunity of being heard has been afforded to either of these, as is so clear from the impugned order. The learned trial Court, in stead of issuing notice to his legal representatives, straightway imposed the penalty to the stated extent. In these premises, the impugned order imposing the penalty and subsequent proceedings may be set aside.

(3.) IN Criminal Appeal No. 1325-SB of 2007, Jagdish (since deceased) stood surety for accused Mukesh son of Suaresident of village Barwala District Panchkula in FIR No. 212 dated 4.10.1998 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula. The learned trial Court on 13.2.2003 in proceedings under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Jagdish in Case No. 5/Misc., ordered that the surety bonds stood forfeited to the State and since Jagdish surety has expired, warrants for attachment of property mentioned in the surety bond be issued for the recovery of the amount of penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.