K. C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the Sessions Judge dated July 3, 1973. dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant against the order dated 6-3-1973 rejecting the application filed by the applicant for revision of the amount of penalty imposed by the order dated 2-2-1973.
(2.) IT appears that the applicant stood as a surety for one Indra Jit Singh, who was being prosecuted for the offence u/Sec. 25 of the Arms Act, 30th December, 1972, was the date fixed for hearing of the case. On the said date, Indra Jit Singh accused did not appear. As a result thereof the surety bonds were forfeited. IT, however, appears that soon thereafter Indra Jit Singh appeared in the court and was released on bail. In pursuance of the order of forfeiture of the bond a show cause notice was issued to the applicant. The applicant did not appear before the court, as a consequence whereof the Magistrate imposed a penalty of the entire amount of Rs. 2000/- on 2-2-1973. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application for revision of the said amount under sub-section (5) of Section 514 Cr.P.C. The application was rejected by the Magistrate. An appeal was, thereafter, preferred by the applicant before the learned Sessions Judge. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable hence, this revision. Learned counsel for the applicant attempted to canvass before me that the power under sub-section (5) of Section 514 Cr.P.C. could be exercised by the Magistrate at any time and that there was no restriction on his power. The submission made does not appear to be correct. Reading sub-Sec. (5) of Sec. 514 Cr.P.C. as well as the context, it appears to me that the power of revision conferred by sub-section (5) of Section 514 Cr.P.C. is capable of being exercised only upto the stage that the court does not impose penalty in pursuance of the show cause notice. After that stage has reached and an order imposing penalty has been passed, the power conferred u/Sec. 514 (5) Cr.P.C. exhausts and cannot be pressed into service for remitting the penalty subsequently. But the present case appears to me a fit case for exercising the power under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. and reducing the amount of penalty from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 200/-. The accused had, admittedly appeared in the court soon after the case was called on 30th December, 1972. In such a situation, it is not possible to take a strict view and to impose the penalty of the entire amount of the bond.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY while treating this revision as an application under Section 561-A CrPC, I allow the same and quash the order of Sessions Judge dated 3-7-1973 and that of the Magistrate 6-3-1973 and 2-2-1973 partly and remit the amount of penalty imposed on the applicant from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 200/-(Rupees two hundred). The applicant is granted two months' notice to deposit the fine. The stay order is discharged. Application allowed.;