BHAWAN Vs. STATE
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-9-25
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on September 09,1952

BHAWAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS is an application by the four sureties, Bhawan, Shanker, Bapu Lal, and Shiv Narain, whose surety bonds for the attendance of certain accused have been forfeited to the extent of Rs. 100/- each. The full amount of the surety bonds was Rs. 2000/- each.
(2.)THE accused for whom the applicants stood as sureties did not attend the court of the Magistrate on the 21st of November,1951,but sent an application that there was a marriage in their family on the date of hearing, and so they could not attend, and the case be postponed. This application was sent by post, and appears to have reached the Court some time after the order regarding forfeiture of bonds was passed on the 21st of November, 1951. THE learned Magistrate called upon the sureties to show cause why they should not be made to pay the penalty of the bond. THE sureties appeared, and stated that the reason for the non-attendance of the accused was the marriage in their family, and so the bonds ought not to be forfeited. THE learned Magistrate, however, forfeited the bonds to the extent of Rs. 100/- each.
The applicants went in appeal against this order to the Court of District Magistrate, Jhalawar, but the learned Magistrate dismissed the appeal. They have come in revision to this Court.

It has been argued by Mr. D. C. Bajpayee appearing on behalf of the applicants that there was justifiable cause for the accused not to attend on the 21st November, 1951, inasmuch as they had a marriage in their family. If that were true, it was the duty of the accused or the sureties to have obtained postponement well in time. They did not do it and an application for postponement was sent as - late as the 19th of November, 1951. The accused is under an obligation to appear before the court on each date of hearing, and a surety who undertakes the responsibility to produce him in Court, is under a like obligation to produce the accused. If, for any reason, the attendance of the accused is not possible steps should be taken to procure the order of the court well-ahead in time. It is only in very exceptional cases when there is no time to obtain an order for postponement before the date on which the accused are to appear that the accused or their sureties might be excused from paying the penalty of their respective bonds in case the accused fail to appear on the date of hearing for valid cause. Of course, if there was marriage in the family of the accused, they had some justification for not appearing on the date of hearing, but then the steps ought to have been taken to procure postponement before that date. It has not been shown that there was no time left for obtaining adjournment before the date of hearing. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, perfectly justified in forfeiting the bonds only in part. The forfeiture to the extent of Rs. 100/-out of the bond of Rs. 2000/- cannot be said to be very harsh.

I do not find any reason to interfere in revision with the order of the lower court. The application for revision is consequently dismissed. .



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