Crl. Misc. No. M-14811 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-14811 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.8.2009 Gurmeet Singh .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Premjit S. Hundal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned court below, whereby that of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, passed under Section 446 Cr.P.C. imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the petitioner was upheld. Briefly, the facts are that FIR was registered against the accused, in which the petitioner stood surety. As the accused absented from the court on 28.9.2001, the surety bonds furnished by the petitioner were cancelled and forfeited to the State. A notice under Section 446 Cr. P.C. was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- be not imposed. The notice was received back with the report of refusal. He was proceeded against ex parte. Under the circumstances, the Chief Judicial Magistrate imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The order was upheld in the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner stood surety of the accused in the present case, considering the fact that he was Afghani National, who had come to India in the period of turmoil in Afghanistan. Announcement was made in Local Gurudawara for requesting some resident to stand surety for him and others as they did not know any local person. It was under these circumstances that the petitioner stood surety for the accused. Otherwise, he was not knowing him personally. It was further submitted that the petitioner was never issued any show cause notice before imposition of penalty and he came to know about the same only after the Patwari visited the petitioner for execution of the order. He further referred to the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Crl. Misc. No. M-14811 of 2009 [2] Judge, Amritsar, in which in case of another accused, a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on her was reduced to Rs. 5,000/- only. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the case in hand does not call for any leniency. The petitioner stood surety for the accused with eyes open and knowing well that she was a foreign national. Now he cannot make excuses. The petitioner was duly sent the notice for imposition of penalty and the service thereof was refused. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. In the present case, FIR was registered under Sections 420/468 IPC against the accused in the year 2000 on the complaint of Immigration Officer at Amritsar, the text thereof is as under: “To, The OIC, Attari Railway Police Station, Punjab. Subject:- Case of forgery in Passport and Visa. Sir, Today (30.6.2000), while I was clearing passengers at Immigration Counter No. 11 (Eleven) at Attari Railway Station. One in-coming passenger Munawar Kaur along with her family from Afghanistan approached with the Afghan National Passport No. OR 317404 dated 4.9.1996, the following forgery and irregularities were detected and on further manual and machine checking, the following were confirmed:- (1) On page No. 5 photo replacement has been detected. The page is actually meant for the spouse of the PP holder, Photo of another young boy has been pasted there. In Urdu the DOB is written as 1316 HRS whereas in English DOB is written as 1988 by overwriting. This has been confirmed by machine. She claimed the young boy to be her son, whereas the page was meant for the entry of her husband. Moreover, the young boy tells his age to be of 12 but physically he looked like 20-22 years. (2) On page No. 6 and 7 entry of Jagjit Singh and Inderjit Singh seem to be forged specially, the entry of Mrs. Inderjit (overwriting) Singh whereas photograph is of a boy of 18 years old as per record. Considering the above mentioned irregularities, defects and forgery, the PAX may be booked under Section 420/468/471 IPC and Section 14 Foreigners Act. They are being sent to you accompanying by one lady Constable Karamjit Kaur No. 1641/NT.” Sd/- A. Chaudhary 30.6.2000 at 2000 Hrs. Immigration Officer, BOI Attari Rail.” The petitioner stood surety for Munawar Kaur for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 22.7.2000. It was undertaken by the petitioner that in case the accused does not appear on any date of hearing, he shall pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as Crl. Misc. No. M-14811 of 2009 [3] penalty to the State. The accused absented from the court on 28.9.2001. Accordingly, the surety bonds furnished by the petitioner were cancelled and forfeited to the State and a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 446 Cr.P.C. to show cause as to why penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- be not imposed. Service of notice was refused by the petitioner. The petitioner was proceeded against ex parte. Surety bonds were forfeited and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed. On a specific query by the court as to whether the accused thereafter appeared in the Court and faced prosecution, the plain and simple answer of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the accused did not appear in Court thereafter. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that notice was not served upon him before imposition of penalty is factually incorrect, as the impugned order clearly mentions that service of notice was refused by the petitioner. No material has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner to show that report of refusal was in any way not correct. As regards reliance on the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in the case of Manjit Kaur, who stood surety for another accused- Narain Singh, is concerned, the same is factually distinguishable. The petitioner therein was an old widow lady and accused- Narain Singh therein could not appear before the trial court on account of the fact that he had expired. Accordingly, the relied upon order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. As the default of the petitioner in the present case is clearly established, the accused having absconded from the proceedings, no leniency can be shown to the petitioner. Still further, the petitioner having already availed of remedy of revision before the court below against the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, second revision before this court is barred and in the garb of quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the same cannot be entertained, as no exceptional circumstances have been shown. For the reasons mentioned above, no fault can be found with the impugned order. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 10.8.2009 mk