Crl.M.No.M-13375 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-13375 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 12, 2010 Bant Singh and another .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.G.S.Toor, Advocate for the petitioners. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of order dated 7.8.2009, passed by learned JMIC, Barnala, vide which penalty of Rs.50,000/- each has been imposed upon the petitioners in proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. and order dated 8.4.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, whereby the appeal filed by petitioners against the said order was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the impugned orders. Admitted facts are that petitioners, namely, Bant Singh and Nachhatar Singh stood sureties for accused Ram Bachan and Santosh Mishra respectively in criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.87, dated 23.10.2006, under Sections 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 IPC. Accused Ram Bachan and Santosh Mishra absented from the Court and they were declared proclaimed offenders by learned trial Court vide order dated 7.8.2009. The present petitioners failed to produce the accused before learned trial Court despite being afforded several opportunities. They were duly served with notices under Section 446 Cr.P.C. and as the surety bonds were cancelled and forfeited to the State, after considering the same, the penalty of Rs.50,000/- each was imposed upon them. Petitioners filed appeal against the said order passed by learned Magistrate before the Court Crl.M.No.M-13375 of 2010 (O&M) -2- of Sessions, Barnala. The same was also dismissed vide impugned judgment, Annexure P2. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that though the impugned order was passed after serving due notice upon the petitioners and after giving sufficient opportunities to petitioners to produce the accused, however, some leniency may be taken in the matter of penalty as the petitioners are poor persons. However, he has failed to show any ground in favour of the petitioners on the basis of which amount of penalty be reduced. They were given sufficient opportunities to produce the accused. However, they failed to produce the accused till today. Hence, in view of these facts, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate as well as in the impugned judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, dismissing the appeal of the present petitioners. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition for quashing of impugned orders dated 7.8.2009 and 8.4.2010. The same is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 12.5.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge