1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 2390-SB of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.12.2008 *** Gulshan Kumar .. Appellant Vs. U.T. Administration, Chandigarh .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Ashok Sharma Mabhewala, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Heard. Delay of 34 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. On request, the appeal is taken on Board for hearing today itself. Heard. Notice of motion. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of U.T. The appellant stood surety for one Ramesh Kumar in an appeal preferred by the latter since he was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by the trial court, who subsequently did not appear during the hearing of the appeal. The appellant-surety was served with a notice under Section 446 Cr.P.C. but having failed to respond to the same, the learned Judge imposed the penalty of Rs.10,000/- equivalent to the amount of surety bond and asked for recovery of the same by issuing recovery warrants. Learned counsel for the appellant has confined his prayer to the extent that the amount of fine, as imposed, be reduced keeping in view the fact that presence of accused has already been procured and he has since been released on bail again by the learned trial court, as is evident from Annexure P-2. Heard. There is nothing on record which is suggestive of the fact that the appellant had any remote scent that the accused is preparing to 2 escape from the trial or he had connived with the accused jumping out the bail. Keeping in view the antecedents of the appellant and the fact that the presence of accused, for whom the appellant stood guarantor has been procured, which is a mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant, the instant appeal is disposed of with the modification that the penalty imposed upon the appellant is reduced to Rs. 2,000/-, which shall be deposited by him within a period of one month. In case of failure on the part of the appellant to deposit the fine amount, the instant appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed, without there being any effect on the recovery proceedings of the original amount of Rs. 10,000/- initiated against the appellant. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE December 10,2008 Jiten