401 9 Criminal Misca Non63616 of 2010 in Criminal Revision N001057 of 2001 Joqi Ram Versus Mussadi and others Presentl None 1 Criminal Revision No 1057 of 2001 which had been r filed by petitionerJogi Ram against the acquittalof Mussadi 0 CO RiyasatTeka and Roopa accusecrespondentsNos1 2 3 and 5 I C5 thereinl and Suba accused respondentNoA thereinl who had I died Iater on and proceedingsagainst him abated recorded by Z the Iower appellateCourt by setting aside the judgmentof conviction and the sentence order passed by the trial Court was 0 allowed by this Court vide judgmentdated 23A2010 thereby I setting aside the judgment passed by the Iower appellateCourt a5 D and restoring the judgmentof conviction rendered by the trial Court and therein were ordered to be V2 Z released on e probation for a periodof one year The accused 1 respondents were directed to furnish personalbonds within a periodof two months from the date of receiptof a copy of the judgmentlorderdated 23A2010 in the Sum of Rs200001 each with one surety of the Iike amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertakingtoappearand receive sentence when called upon to do so duringthis periodand in the meantime to maintain peace and be of good behaviour The sentence order passed by the trial Court in respect of the was modified accordingly KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.09.28 14: 55 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document r 402 0 e2 Criminal Misce Non63616 of 2010 in Criminal Revision N0e1057 of 2001 Now it has been intimated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kaithal through the District and Sessions Judge Kaitha that out of the five only three Iee MussadiRiyasat and Teka have fuhlished the requisitebonds and Suba and Roopa have notdone soe m It appears that the Chief Judicial MagistrateKaithal has not 0 perused the judgmentlorderdated 23 2010 passed by this 0 I Court carefully because therein it has been mentioned that C5 accusedrespondentSuba died and criminal proceedingsagainsthim I abatede Z The Chief Judicial Magistrate Kaithal has sought direction from this Court as to what action is to be taken against I accusedrespondentRoopa because he has failed to furnish the 08 requisitebonds before him within the prescribed period and this r Court has not Iaid down any default clause in case of failure of 7 Z the accusedrespondentsto furnish the requisitebonds within the tl prescribedperiod This query from the Iearned Chief Judicial Magistratewas ordered to be heard on the judicialside and accordingly it was numbered as Criminal Misc No63616 of 2010 It appears that thelearned the in this Court dic not communicate to Roopa about the passing of judgment dated 232010 whereby he was required to furnish the personall surety bonds as aforemstated Accordingly this application IS disposedof with a direction to the Chief Judiciai MagistrateKaithal to ISSue notice to accusecespondentRoopa KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.09.28 14: 55 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 403 0 e3 Criminal Misce Noa63616 of 2010 in Criminal Revision No057 of 2001 apprisinghim of the judgmentlorderdated 232010 passed by this Court and directing himto furnish the requisitebonds within the period to be mentioned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the said notice If Roopa does not comply with the direction to be issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate m Kaithal after he accusedrespondentRoopa is served with the 0 said notice he shall have to undergorigorousimprisonmentfor 0 I one year C December06 2010 C PALI ak JUDGE Z r C45 m m2 Z 0 tl KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.09.28 14: 55 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document