UJAGAR SINGH,J - (1.) THE revision petitioner was a surety for one Raj Singh who was being prosecuted for an offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act and was released on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount. On one of the dates fixed in the case, Raj Singh absented. Notice was given to the surety to produce him. On 20-2-85 the revision-petitioner appeared in Court and requested for time to produced Raj Singh on 20.3.1985 on which date neither Raj Singh appeared in the Court nor the revision-petitioner. The trial Court forfeited the bonds and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the petitioner. He preferred an appeal to the Court of Session, but remained unsuccessful. Orders of both the Courts below have been challenged in this revision.
(2.) SHRI Bipan Ghai, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner tried his best to produce Raj Singh who was not traceable and the penalty was imposed by the trial Court without issuing notice to him. The order of forfeiture was passed on 20-3-1985. Recovery warrants were issued for 17-5-1985. Raj Singh accused appeared in Court on 17-9-1985, in custody. The revision-petitioner, promised to trace Raj Singh and produce him. Ultimately, Raj Singh was present on 17-9-1985 and this file does not show when he was produced. There may be so many reasons for the surety to produce the accused. The trial Court should have gone into details of the circumstances under which the petitioner was unable to produce the accused in Court. Without going into the merits, fault of the petitioner is not such so as to invite penalty of Rs. 5000/-. The ultimate object of surety bonds is to secure presence of the accused and in the case in the hand, his presence was secured after some delay.
(3.) IN this view of the matter, I accept this revision and reduce the penalty from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 500/- only. The remaining amount, if recovered, be refunded. Revision accepted.;