APPELLANT HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 554/2008 Dwarika ram aged about 43 years, S/o Shri Tiharu ram., R/o Vfflage Muudgaon, Post_ Tumnmod, TaIisU Dorgargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon. VERSUS RESPONDENT Accused Owner 1, 2. 3. ^ The State of Chliattisgarh through PoUce Statiou Basantpur, Rajnandgaon. Sudhaker @ Raviuder Reddy, S/o Bali Reddy, aged about 28 years, R/o Anupamnagar,ThaaaL.B. Nagar, Distt. Haidrabad (A.P.), Swaau Laxainan Reddy, S/o Param. Reddy, Bhagya Nagar Colony Haiwarapuram. Distt. Andhra Pradesh. APPEAL UNDBR SECTION 449 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCBDURE. 1973. (SB: sWoa'ble Mr. T.P.Sbarma, J.) Preseat: SliriParagKotecha,Advocateforfheappellaat. Sbn Bltaskar Pyasi, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 1. None for fhe respondents No. 2 & 3. (not noticed). ORAL-ORDER (Passed on 23/6/2008) 1. This appeal is directed agamst the order dated 19/5/2008 passed by Special Judge, (Electricity Act), Rajnaadgaon in crmunal M.J.C. No. 47/2007, whereby leamed Special Judge has directed to deposit the amouat of surety to the uon-appUcaut. 2. The order is cliatlenged on the ground that trial Court has faUed to impose any penalty as required uader Sectiou 446 of fhe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (ia short 'the Code'). Trial Court was not coiapetent to direct to deposit whole amouat of surety aad thereby committed illegality. 3. Coiinsel for the parties heard. •'•<.. .,. —' <-. *'-?> - ? 4. The order iuipugned perused. According to'the order dated 11/10/2007 a separate M.J.C. against the non-appUcaat was registered and show cause notice as required uader Section 446 of the Code has been issued, same was repUed 011 14/2/2008 by fhe appeUant, Appellant was directed to produce truck, for which appeUant was siirely, but appellaut lailed to produce truck. Lastty, recovery of the amoi.uit of suffety was directed by order impugned. 5. Accordiag to ttie copy of fhe order sheets of the trial Court aniple opportuiuly has been provided to the appeUant for productiou of truck, for which appeUant was siirety. AppeUant failed to produce the truck aad failed to comply the condition of fhe suretv. Surety bond was confiscated and order of recovery has been made by the Trial Court, 6. AppeUant is not able to satisfy that what illegaUty or infirmity has been committed toy the tnal Court. On fhe other hand no optiofl except to recover fhe amount of surety bond was left wifh the trial Court. Trial Court has not coininitted any illegality or infirmity by passiag the order impugiied, I do not find auy grouad for iaterference. Cousequently, crimiual appeal haviag no force is liable to be dismissed it is hereby disinissed at fhe stage of adnussion. ll.':'Sd/-.'.:' T.P.Sliarma Judge