IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1097 OF 2010 BETWEEN: M/s.Citiwide Financial Service Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director. …. Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad others. …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1097 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No.1076 of 2005 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad filed against the second respondent / accused. The third respondent stood as surety for the accused in this case in the lower Court. Subsequently, the accused was absconding. So non-bailable warrant was issued against the accused and proceedings were initiated against the sureties. During the course of proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. the surety appeared before the lower Court and filed memo requesting the Court to confiscate the FDR amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) given as surety amount, as she is unable to produce the accused. Thereupon, the lower Court confiscated surety amount deposited by the third respondent and discharged the surety. 2. The petitioner’s counsel contends that the lower Court passed the order in question without notice to the complainant. Order of the lower Court reads that the said order was passed in the presence of the complainant. Further, the lower Court did not totally discharge the surety without confiscating the bond amount, but the lower court confiscated bond amount relating to the surety in the first instance and thereafter discharged the surety. 3. Liability of the surety is to produce the accused or in default, to face forfeiture of the bond amount. Since the third respondent / surety could not produce the accused inspite of her efforts, she prayed for confiscation of FDR amount of Rs.5,000/- in respect of which she executed the surety. Consequently, the lower Court rightly passed the order in question in this revision petition. Section 446 Cr.P.C., does not contemplate any notice to the complainant before passing the order thereunder and particularly when entire bond amount relating to the surety is forfeited. I see no merits in this revision. 4. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU, J June 14, 2010. KTL