S. C. Mital, J. - (1.) Facts giving rise to-this appeal are that Mohan Singh was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, under section 9 of the Opium Act, and sentenced to one Yars rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six mouths. During the pendency of his appeal, while on bail. Mohan Singh absented himself on 29th Aug., 1980 Thereupon the two sureties, namely, Jnder Lal, who has preferred this appeal, and Gurdial Singh, were proceeded against. Both of them were ordered to pay the full amount of penalty, that is, Rs. 2500.00, each.
(2.) For reducing the penalty imposed on Inder Lal, his learned counsel has laid stress on the following circumstances.
(3.) Inder Lal is a petty tea-vendor. He was pressurised to become a surety because Mohan Singh is the brother of his wife. Efforts were made by him to produce Mohan Singh. For that purpose he even went to Delhi and learnt that Mohan Singh had been arrested by the Police and lodged in the Tihar Jail. The Ludhiana Court was accordingly intimated. There is nothing to indicate that Inder Lal in any way connived with Mohan Singh in absenting himself or in jumping bail. In view of these facts and circumstances, his learned counsel placed reliance on K. Rafudin Ahmed Vs. State of Mysore, 1973 Cri. L. J. 891 , wherein the learned Single Judge of Mysore High Court observed:- "The quantum of penalty must bear some co-relation to the circumstances present in a case such as long continued absence of the accused, the nature of offence with which he is charged and the likelihood of the State being put to further exertion and expenses in apprehending the accused. The poverty or ability of the surety to pay the sum, may well in certain circumstances be also a relevant fact." Reference was also made to Parbhu Dayal Vs. Emperor, AIR 1927 Allahabad 831 , Jora Singh Vs. Emperor, AIR 1933 Lahore 42 , Das Gupta Vs. Emperor, AIR 1935 Calcutta 246. Upon a consideration of the entire matter, in my view the ends of justice will be met by reducing the penalty to Rs. 500.00It is ordered accordingly. This appeal stands disposed of. Order accordingly.;