ARUN KUMAR DUTTA, J. - (1.)The instant Appeal was admitted on 30th September, 1980, and the two accused-appellants Ram Chandra Singh and Banowari Lal Yadav had been directed to be released on bail pending hearing of the Appeal; who were accordingly released on bail. The Learned Advocate for the Appellants, Mr. Ramendra Nath Chakrabarty, had been allowed to retire from the case on the prayer made by him in terms of the Court's Order dated 3rd April, 1991. The Court by the said Order had thereupon directed issue of administrative notices upon the Appellants for their appearance before the Court for the purpose of hearing of the Appeal. The record would indicate that the administrative notices issued in terms of the aforesaid order could not be served upon any of the said two Appellants despite repeated directions; and had eventually been returned unserved with the report that they do not reside in the given address. The sureties for the accused-Appellants could neither furnish their correct address and whereabouts. The Court by order dated 13th August, 1991 had, accordingly, directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly, to issue warrants of arrest against two accused-Appellants, and to proceed against their sureties for enforcing the bail bonds in terms thereof. The warrants of arrest issued against them (accused Appellants) could not be executed, and they could not be arrested so far, despite lapse of so long a time, in the meanwhile. There could, therefore, be no mistaking that both the accused-Appellants have jumped bail and have made themselves scarce for the purpose of the hearing of the Appeal. They do not, therefore, seem to be interested in proceeding with this Appeal, which is pending for the last 15 years. There could, therefore, be little point in keeping the instant Appeal pending for indefinite period, in the aforesaid circumstances, when the Appellants themselves do not seem to be interested in proceeding with the same. And, upon examination of the petition of appeal, the copy of the impugned judgement and order of the Court below, and the case records, it appears to us that there is no sufficient ground for interfering with the impugned judgement and order of conviction dated 19th September, 1980 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly, in Sessions Trial No. 96 of 1979 before him for the reasons discussed at length in the judgement. We, accordingly, dismiss the instant Appeal and confirm the impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Trial Judge by his aforesaid impugned judgement in the aforesaid case.
(2.)Since the aforesaid two accused-Appellants, Ram Chandra Singh and Banowari Lal Yadav, who were released on bail pending hearing of this Appeal in terms of the order of this Court dated 30th September, 1980, have jumped bail and had made themselves scarce, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hooghly, shallforthwithissue fresh warrants of arrest and W.P.A, if so required, according to law against both of them, also in the address furnished by the sureties, for their arrest of production before him (C.J.M.) so that they may be made to suffer the sentence imposed upon them by the aforesaid impugned judgement and order. The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall chase the police at regular intervals for execution of the processes, to be issued by him in terms of this order, till the said two accused-Appellants are arrested and produced before him for the aforesaid purpose, instead of sitting idle by merely issuing of warrants of arrest against them without chasing of police for execution of the same, as he so long did. The Chief Judicial Magistrate shall also keep this Court informed every two months about the steps taken by him in the matter in terms of this order till the said two accused Appellants are arrested and produced before him for the purpose indicated above. The Chief Judicial Magistrate shall also direct the Sureties to pay the entire outstanding amount of penalties, payable by them on the forfeited bail bonds, by 15-7-95. On their failure to do so, he (C.J.M.) shall proceed to recover the same in terms of the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. And, if the penalties cannot be recovered, he (C.J.M.) shall sentence them to imprisonment in terms of the proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Chief Judicial Magistrate shall report compliance to this Court in the matter by 1-8-95.
(3.)Before parting with the matter we would like to record our strongest disapproval about the manner in which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly, appears to have proceeded with the matter so far without taking proper and prompt step for execution of the warrants of arrest against the accused-Appellants, and for recovering the penalty from the Sureties concerned despite repeated Orders of this Court, as appearing from the record. The conduct of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the face of the record. clearly appears to be good deal less happy and far from satisfactory, which cannot but earn from the Court, making him liable for appropriate action. We, however, refrained from taking any action against him for the present, and simply record our strongest disapproval about the manner he had conducted himself in the matter, and warn him to be careful in complying with the orders of this Court in future. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Hooghly shall note for his future guidance.
;