In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-7550 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:19.3.2009 Maura Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for shot) has been filed for setting aside the order dated 5.11.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot whereby the revision petition against the order dated 6.9.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot has been dismissed. The proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner as he stood surety in the sum of Rs.40,000/- for one Deepak Kumar, who had been granted bail. It was undertaken by the petitioner that the accused Deepak Kumar was to appear in Court on each and every date of hearing. The bail bond submitted by the accused Deepak Kumar was accepted and attested on 16.9.2004. However, accused Deepak Kumar absented himself from the case and was ultimately declared as a proclaimed offender on 23.2.2007. Accordingly, notice under Section 446 Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioner which was served by Head Constable Joginder Singh on 17.8.2008. The petitioner did not appear and he was Cr. Misc. No.M-7550/2009 [2] proceeded against ex parte. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 6.9.2008 imposed penalty of Rs.40,000/- on the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved against the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot. The order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was assailed on the ground that the same was passed in the absence of the petitioner and no notice had been served on him. The learned Sessions Judge found the contentions of the petitioner to be devoid of merit. On perusal of the record, it was found that after the forfeiture of bail and surety bond of the accused Deepak Kumar, notice under Section 446 Cr.P.C. on the prescribed proforma was issued and served on the petitioner Maura Singh on 17.8.2008 through Head Constable Joginder Singh. However, the petitioner did not appear to contest the proceedings. Besides, the petitioner failed to produce accused Deepak Kumar in the trial Court and ultimately he was declared as a proclaimed offender. The petitioner was also given an offer by the learned Sessions Judge to produce the accused but he failed to produce him. In the circumstance, it was held that the learned Magistrate had rightly held the petitioner liable to deposit whole of the amount of his forfeited surety bond. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is very poor and is not in a position to pay the amount of Rs.40,000/- and, therefore, the penalty of Rs.40,000/- is liable to be reduced. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that except for the bald assertion of the petitioner that he is very Cr. Misc. No.M-7550/2009 [3] poor person, no material has been placed on record to show his incapacity to pay the amount. In the circumstances, it is evident that the petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. March 19, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*