IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND ATNAINITAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.186 of 2002 Kali Ram S/o Ramji Lal and another ……… Appellants Versus State of Uttaranchal ………… Respondent Dated: December 15, 2008 Sri K.S. Verma, learned counsel for appellants Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 449 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the order dated 12.07.2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CBI)/Anti- Corruption, Uttaranchal, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No.34/2000. I have heard Sri K.S. Verma, Advocate for the appellants and Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State and perused the entire material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that the appellants-Kali Ram and Budh Ram were the sureties of the accused Jamil Ahmed in Criminal Appeal No.34/2000, Jamil Ahmed Vs. State. Accused Jamil was convicted by IIIrd Addl. CJM, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 19.5.2000 for the offence punishable under Section 380 of The Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) and was sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment, one month’s further simple imprisonment was awarded. Against the said order, accused Jamil Ahmed filed an appeal before the court of Sessions Judge, Dehradun. The appeal was transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CBI), Anti- Corruption, Uttaranchal Dehradun for disposal according to law. Accused Jamil Ahmed was released on bail by the order of I/c Sessions Judge, Dehradun vide order dated 21.6.2000 on the two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each. Appellants-Kali Ram and Budh Ram became the sureties and accordingly they furnished the surety bonds. On the basis of the surety bonds furnished by the appellants, accused Jamil was released from jail. However, after that accused Jamil did not appear before the court and non-bailable warrant was issued against him and even the proceedings u/s 82/83 of Cr.P.C. was issued against him, where the court has received the report that accused Jamil had gone somewhere after selling his entire property. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge /Special Judge (CBI)/Anti-Corruption, Uttaranchal, Dehradun vide her order dated 12.7.2002 has directed to initiate the proceeding u/s 446 of Cr.P.C. against the appellant No.No.2-Budh Ram and a notice u/s 446 Cr.P.C. was also directed to be issued against appellant no.2-directing him to reply as to why the surety amount be not recovered from him. Against the appellant no.1-Kali Ram, the notice was also directed to be issued on due date. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 12.7.2002, the appellants have come up in appeal before this Court. Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State raised a preliminary objection that in the present case, no final order has been passed against the appellants, hence the appeal is premature. On the other hand, Sri K.S. Verma, Advocate for the appellants prayed that the time may be allowed to the appellants to appear before the court below so as to reply the notice issued against them. A perusal of the impugned order dated 12.7.2002 makes it clear that only the notices were issued against the appellants u/s 446 Cr.P.C. and no final order has been passed against them. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The order dated 12.7.2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (CBI)/Anti-Corruption, Uttaranchal, Dehradun, is confirmed. However, the appellants are at liberty to appear before the trial court and to reply the notice. Interim order dated 1.8.2002 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) December 15, 2008 Rajeev Dang