'^9 .^ ^ f 1 ^. CF000006S970""" C^T •s'^c97^ IK THE HI&H CO f.I OF J^DIC^TURE -:,^ JABALPUR, Srimiual Revision no, O^ l/L'3//^ 8. ./1998. 2 FiU on Applicant • 'fhanu Ram, ;3/o Dhaiii Bam, aged 60 yea.rs, labour. resident of vj-llage, Salkhan; Police Station; Shivri Karayan, Bilaspure M.F. 15^^ ^p:_y^^___ :.-.^.-...S"n'^A...^. Vs. ^ff '..•'• ./ „. _ Kon-applicant;- The State ofMadhya P'radesh, RLA R. CRIMINAL REVI3ION UNDER 3ECTION 597 & 401 OF TIiE. C03S OF ;RIMINAL FROCEDURE. 1973. ''^' .. \£ HI6H COURT OF CHH^TTtSSARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Honbl®Mr. Justice Prjtinker Diwaker Criminal Appeol No. 443 of 2010 APPELLANT Thanu Ram, s/o Dhani Ram RESPONDEN' The State of M.adhya Pradesh Shri H.S. Patel, counsel for the appeliant. Shri Praveen Das. Dy. S.A. for the State/respondent. CRIMINAL REVISION UN&ER SECTION 397/401 OF TME CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCE&URE OR D ER (22.07.2010) The appellant hcs filed the present appea! assaiiing the order dated 5.8.1998 & 10.8.199S passed by Additiond Sessions Judge, Batoda Qozor, D'istrict Raipur in AA..J.C. No. 4/1998. Vide. order dated 5.8.1998 the learned Court below issued a fresh warrmt of attachment for the recovery of the amount and had a!so sent the appetlant to Jail whereas vide order dated 10.8.1998 learned court below has rejected the application as filed by the applicant under Section 446 (3) of the Code of Crimina! Procedure. 2. Counsel for the appeliant submits that without giving him proper opport'unity, the court below ought not to have passed the order dated 5.8.1998 and 10.8.1998. He submits that the order doted 5.8.1998 appears to have been pssed in a haste where even the name of the Constable has not been mentioned. He further submits that had the due opport-unity would have been given to the applicant, he would have produced the absconding accused or wouid b-ave mads some efforts to get him arrested. ^y'' •Sl-S!"e'' 3. On the other hand, supporring the impugned judgment, it has been argued by the Statecounsel that due opportunity was given to the applicant cnd when on 29.7.1998 the applicant had personally appeared before the Court' below, the Courf- below had asked him to f1le his reply, he hod stated that he would be filing the soime immediatety and by saying that he ieft the court room. He submits that court' be!ow had catled the matter thrice on 29.7.1998 and when the applicant failed to appear before the court below, the court below was fuliy justified in issuance of attachment order. He submits that even on 5.8.1998 when the applicont was produced befor®the Court', he could have satisfied the court below and could have fiied his proper reply. He submits that the orders impugned are strictly in accordance with law and there is no ijlegolity in the same. 4. I have heard counsel fop the parties and perused the material avaiiable on record. 5. From the record it appears that in Sessions Trial No. 114/1988, the appiiccnt stood as surety for the accused Bharat Lal and as ths accused did not appear before the Court' below, his bai! was canGslled. The said Bharat Lal was facing prosecution for the offences under Section 307 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. Record also reflects that the said tria! of Bharat Lal was pending before the court- below since last 10 years and despite issuonce of orrest warrant, accused Bharat Lai couid not be arrested, and therefore, the Court below had no other option but to issue notice to the surety. On 6.7.1998 the notice was issued to the surety ond separote M.J.C. was directed to be "»• rf &. ''s! *% ^... " ^ &„,<; 4-c1 registered and the case was directed to be listed on 29.7.1998. On 29.7.1998, the applicant had personally appeared before the Court" and when the court had asked him to fi!e his reply, he had stated that he would be filing the same immediately and by saying that he left the court room. On the same day i.e. 29.7.1998 at about 1.45 pm, the matter was again called but the applicant remained absent, at 3 pm the matter was again taken up but this time also applicant was absent cuid ultimately at about 4.30 pm, the matter was again taken up and considering a!l the aspects of the case, the court' betow has passed the order of attachment and has directed the applicant to remain present on 5.8.1998. On 5.8.1998 the appliccmt was brought before the Court by the police Constabie along with the attachment order, however, as the amount was not deposited by him, he was sent behind the bar and again attachment order was issued for recovery of the amount. On 10.8.1998 the matter was taken up by the Court' to consider ths apptication under Section 446 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as fiied by the appiicant and after considering all the aspects of the case, the said application was rejected by the court- below. From the record, it is apparent that the accused Bharat Lat for whom the applicant stood as surety was absconding. Though the trial was pending since !ast 10 years, applicant appeared before the Court on 29.7.1998 and he took leave to go outside the couri' for filing his reply but he too absconded from the Court and, therefore, the court' below was fullyjustified in passing the impugned order dated 5.8.1998 & 10.8.1998. i; .--^••"—.^ "^. lk. \ "t \ i -~.:-rf' D/- ^ 6. Thus, the finding recorded by court' be!ow being based on the material awiiable on record appears to be wholly justified warranting no interference in this revision. Accordingly, the revision being without merit is liabie to be dismissed.It is accordinqly dismissed. '' --~""--~-' SdA Judge