XI-HC—78 3^V W R-ii'* ?TSTT-3Tf^?T *^t^i 3^ET '^1<<1<?'><<, »Tfl'M'l<o, {s|<<'l<rfy ^.^^....^..l../°-&...^ 200 sn^r •qgg; ( ^iiWHfe an^r Petitioner/: (Appiscant) Mbtilal Pandey. S/o. Ramswarup Pandey, ^ed about^ 85 years, Qccupatson - Bipsiness, R/b,- Viilage Kewara, Poiice S<at!"n Prstappur, D'strict Surgujs (C.G.) Sla+inr! -Vereud Resoondent (Non-appSicant) 3tate of Chhattisaarh. Tnrough P.S. <Writ Petition under Art SingteBenchLHtin'bleShrUusticeL.C.BhadpQ '-1- Shri Ashok Kumar Shuk!d Shri SumitVerma, Panell Heard. The petitioner, namelv under Article 227 of the Constl correctness of the order dated 2' Sessions Judge. SuraiDur, Dl Sessions Judge in pursuance asked the petitioner herein to Rs.2,00.000/- each to the the oetitioner to take his vehicl^ criminat Case No.102/05 for tl-|i 148,148,307,302,385, 1208,! and 38, 39 A (1-11) 6(1-11) of short 'the Act of 1967'). In df satisfact 'cbi^i^^ iTR^ff ^^slr •d^^.[< ^aifinsn^r 1"<>+'1^*^*^1'•' !^"'***'I^k+ Cl! ! K'**l t ••'•'i (f^ f= \ li«.t4<ajJpUi) L-fl..?i.iii^i, <-iwiyUj«.* ^w.^.^ ;te 226/227 ofthe Constitution of Inaia) , counse! for the petitioner. Lawyer for the state/respondent. i|i/iotilal Pandey, has filed this writ petition :jtution of India questioning the legality and ^9.10.2007 passed by learned Second Addl. Istt. Surauja wherebv the learned Addl. this court order dated 16'" October, 2007 Ifurnish two solvent sureties for a sum of tisfaction of the trial Court in order to enabie on SuDurdiainama tiil the oendencv of the tlte offence punishabte under Sections 147, I124A of I.P.C., Sections 25/27 of Arms Act Urtlawful Activities (Preventionl Act, 1967 (for pi<rsuance of thls order, petitioner submitted IR aa; ~<!S» S -HC—7S 3^T "41-tllri^, 3ifl1<1'l<S, Rlfrtiyy •WRW *MI=b^ ....y'P^2....'53;!/.0.% an^?r ^RR; (lic*(l'si<w) 3iA?T W h-i\* ^FT STT^T^RN? BB '?RiiW(ri?g sii^r <+l^l[dAi1'1 'Wr^f if •f^^f^R^R ^aiRpTsn^T suDurdiainama & oersonal bondl and two solvent sureties as per the Court order. The learned Addl. Sessibns Judge has observed that in pursuance 'rf of the Court order he has not silbmitted solvencv certificate and refused to accept the sureties bv impugned] order. Learned counsel for the c alreadv been furnished. Rin Pui affidavit in suDDort of the apoli Judge ought not to have ask4d for the solvent certificate of Revenue authoritv. Sub-Section 4 of Seittion 441 of the Cr.P.C. contemDlates that "for the Duroose of determining \ the sufficiencv or fitness of the s subordinate to the Court. as to si Theret-ore, sub-Section 4 Court is not satisfied with the si letitioner argued that the two sureties have itika regarding titte of agricuttural iand and sation. Therefore, teamed Addl. Sessions ether the sureties are fit or sufficient. the Court may accept affidavits in prjsof of the facts contained therein reiating to (ureties, or, if it considers necessary. mav either hold an inauirv itself or calise an inauirv to be made bv a Maaistrate (ich sufficiencv or fltness". of Section 441 contemDiates that it tne jfficiencv or fitness of the suretv, Court is entitled to hold an enquiry. Thel'efore, learned 2 Addl. District Judge has not committed anv error or illeg^ bv asking the petitioner to fljrnish solvencv certificate in favour of aDpropriate authoritv In the result, the petition and it is hereby dismissed, at th^ litv, or infirmitv in passina impugned order seing devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed admission staae itself. No order as to costs. Sdf- L.C. Bhadoo Judge A«^