Crl. Revision No. 2544 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2544 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: March 25, 2010 Surinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. This revision has been preferred by Surinder Singh, petitioner/surety, against the order dated 10.7.2009, vide which the appeal preferred by him against the order dated 31.10.2008 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, imposing penalty of Rs. 20,000/-, under Section 446 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), was dismissed. One Jaswinder Singh was accused in FIR No. 78 dated 7.4.2007 registered at Police Station City Kotkapura, under Sections 452, 380, 323, 148/149 IPC. In that FIR, he was ordered to be released on bail on executing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with a surety in the like amount. The petitioner executed surety bond for that amount and agreed to pay that amount as penalty to the State in the event of the absence Crl. Revision No. 2544 of 2009 2 of the accused from the Court on any date of hearing. The accused absented himself from the Court and as a result thereof notice under Section 446 (1) of the Code was given to the petitioner to appear and show cause why he be not directed to pay the amount of surety bond to the State as penalty. Notice was duly served upon him but he did not come present and as a result thereof the surety bond executed by the petitioner was forfeited to the State. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate imposed the penalty of Rs. 20,000/-, vide order dated 31.10.2008. The petitioner filed the appeal against that order, which was dismissed, vide aforesaid order and which is under challenge in this revision. Notice of motion was issued only regarding remission of the amount of the penalty, so imposed upon the petitioner. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not in a position to pay this amount and this was the only case in which he had stood as surety. Keeping in view the nature of the offences of which the accused was accused of and that the petitioner is stated to be a poor person, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is remitted. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. March 25, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE