Criminal Revision No. 1225 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1225 of 2003 Date of Decision : 18.5.2011. Kirna Rani ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Manjit Singh Uppal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Addl. AG, Punjab. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated January 7th, 2003 passed by Sessions Judge, Sangrur affirming the order dated November 22nd, 2002 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sunam whereby application filed by petitioner was dismissed and the order dated October 6th, 1998 directing Shiv Dutt, husband of the petitioner to pay penalty of Rs.10,000/- was not recalled. 2. In case bearing First Information Report No. 64 dated April 29th, 1994 under Sections 380 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Moonak, Krishan Kumar-accused was released on bail and Shiv Dutt stood surety for him. Krishan Kumar absconded and a notice under Section 446 of Code of Criminal Procedure was issued to Shiv Dutt. By order dated October 6th, 1998 he was imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that husband of the petitioner has died on January 2nd, 2002 and she has no source of income to meet the liability. The petitioner has to bring up two children. Out of them, her daughter is handicapped and son is addict. There is no one else in the family to earn livelihood. In order Criminal Revision No. 1225 of 2003 2 to eke out the livelihood, the petitioner herself works as house-maid. It has been further prayed that under these circumstances, the amount of fine may kindly be remitted. 4. Husband of the petitioner stood surety for the accused. The petitioner had nothing to do with the same. Unfortunately, he has died leaving behind a handicapped daughter and a son who is addict. The petitioner is a house-maid. Under these circumstances, it shall be in the interest of justice to remit the amount of penalty. Thus, the revision is accepted and the orders under challenge are set aside. The petitioner is discharged from the liability. 5. Disposed of. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 18.5.2011. SN