B.R.ARORA,J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.92, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh, by which the learned Additional Session Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and maintained the order dated 6.6.89 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh.
(2.) ONE jeep bearing No. PUW -8 -601 was seized in a criminal case, which, on the application filed by the petitioners, was given to them on Supurdginama on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ - with one surely in the like amount. The surety bonds and the Supurdginama were furnished by the petitioners. As per the bonds, they were required to produce the jeep in the Court on each and every date of hearing. They, also, furnished the bond to the effect that the jeep in question will not be sold during the pendency of the proceedings. The petitioners could not produce the jeep on the dates fixed for the production of the jeep and sold the same during the pendency of the case. As the jeep could not be produced, trial Court ordered for the forfeiture of the amount of the bonds and ordered for the recovery of the full amount thereof. Notices were issued to the surety and the petitioners. They filed their reply and the learned trial Court considered the application moved by the petitioners under Section 446(3) Cr.P.C. and rejected the same by his order dated 7.3.89. No appeal against that order was filed by the petitioners, by which the application under Section 446(3) Cr. P.C., moved by the petitioners, was rejected and that order became final. The proceedings for recovery of the amount were thereafter undertaken. When the recovery -proceedings were in progress, another application was moved by the petitioners under Section 446(3) Cr. P.C., which was also, dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 6.6.89. Dissatisfied with the order dated 6.6.89, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh (Camp Suratgarh) which was dismissed by him by his order dated 12.10.92. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the appeal, observed that the jeep in question was sold by Prithvi Raj and others without any prior permission from the Court and a case under Section 406 I.P.C. was also, instituted against him, which is pending and, therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly ordered for the forfeiture of the amount of the bonds, i.e., the Supardginama as well as the surety -bonds. It is against this order dated 12.10.92, that the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Supurdginama was submitted only for a period of one month and it has been specifically mentioned in the order date 12.10.92 that the petitioners should furnish the Fitness Certificate within a period of one month and if the Fitness Certificate is not furnished within a period of one month then the Supardginama and the Personal Bonds will stand cancelled. It has further been argued that in the order dated 12.10.92, it has not been mentioned that in case any contravention is made or the jeep is not produced then the order for foreiture will be passed and as there is no such condition in the order regarding forfeiture of the bonds, the order to this effect cannot be passed. It is, also, contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that bonds and the Supurdginama submitted by the petitioners are not legal and no confiscation order can be passed for foreiture of the amount of the Supardginama or that of the bonds. It is, also, contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the order of foreiture can be passed by the State as per the conditions in the Supurdginama and the Court has no such power. Lastly, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the learned Courts below have ordered for the forfeiture of the whole amount while some leniency should have been shown looking to the nature of the case an the whole amount should not have been foreited. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Courts below.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.;