Criminal Misc. No. M-7397 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-7397 of 2010 Date of Decision: 27.07.2010 Joginder Singh son of Watna Ram, resident of Village Khanpur, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the order dated 03.07.08 (Annexure P1), passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gharshankar, and, the order dated 20.11.09 (Annexure P3), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur, has been filed by the petitioner. 2. Joginder Singh, petitioner, stood surety for accused Harmesh Lal, in case titled as 'State Vs. Satnam Singh and others', under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, and, furnished the surety bond, in the sum of Rs. 40,000/-, on 27.11.03. He undertook, to ensure the Criminal Misc. No. M-7397 of 2010 2 presence of Harmesh Lal, accused, on each and every date of hearing. Harmesh Lal, accused, absented, from the Court, and, he was, ultimately, declared proclaimed offender, under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 3. On 03.07.08, notice under Section 446 Cr.P.C., was served upon Joginder Singh, but, he did not come present. Accordingly, penalty, in the sum of Rs. 40,000/-, was imposed upon him, by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar, vide order dated 03.07.08. 4. Feeling aggrieved, instead of filing an appeal, against the order impugned, passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar, a revision-petition, was filed, by the petitioner, which was dismissed, by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 20.11.09. 5. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant petition, has been filed, by the petitioner. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, no doubt, the petitioner, absented from the Court, and, ultimately, he was declared proclaimed offender, yet, the Courts below, did not take into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, at the time of imposing highly excessive penalty upon him. He further submitted that, Harmesh Lal, accused, surrendered, before the Court, and, was Criminal Misc. No. M-7397 of 2010 3 again released on bail. He further submitted that, the entire amount of surety, has been deposited, by the petitioner. He prayed for reduction of the amount. 8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that, the Courts below, after taking into consideration, the entire facts and circumstances of the case, were right, in coming to the conclusion that, since the petitioner, stood surety for the accused, who was declared proclaimed offender, it was not a fit case, in which, lesser penalty was required to be imposed. He further submitted that, the orders impugned, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. In this case, the accused, was declared proclaimed offender, under Section 82 Cr.P.C. It means that, sufficient time must have been taken, with a view, to declare the accused, as proclaimed offender. This shows that, the petitioner, did not make any effort, to produce the accused, in the Court. On account of the absence of the accused, in the case for a long time, the trial of the case stood hampered and impeded. The penalty imposed does not appear to be excessive, in any manner. The amount of penalty, as submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner, has already been deposited. The orders impugned, do not suffer from any Criminal Misc. No. M-7397 of 2010 4 illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same are liable to be upheld. 10. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-7397 of 2010, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. 27.07.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE