Criminal Appeal No.493-SB of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 493-SB of 2004 Date of Decision: 17.03.2010 Baghel Singh son of Udham Singh, r/o Dera Bhinda, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal. ... Appellant Versus State of Haryana. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.02.04, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide which, it imposed penalty of Rs. 30,000/- upon the surety. 2. In case FIR No. 339, dated 03.08.03, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Physchotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), Police Station Assandh, Baghel Singh, appellant, stood surety for Jasbir Singh, accused, in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-, undertaking to produce him, on each and every date of hearing. Jasbir Singh, accused, absented from the Court, and, he was summoned through Non Bailable Warrants of arrest. Criminal Appeal No.493-SB of 2004 2 3. Notice, under Section 446 Cr.P.C., was also issued to Baghel Singh, appellant, who put in appearance, in pursuance of the same. Ultimately, he got surrendered Jasbir Singh, on 13.02.04, in the Court. The Court below, imposed penalty, in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-, upon the surety, vide the order impugned. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant. 5. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 6. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the amount of penalty, imposed upon the appellant, is to harsh, especially, keeping in view the fact, that it was the appellant, who made efforts, and, ultimately got surrendered the accused, in the main case, on 13.02.04. He further submitted that the trial Court, was, thus, required to show leniency, in the matter of imposition of penalty. 7. The Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant, is the father of Jasbir Singh, accused. He did not dispute the factum that Baghel Singh, appellant, got surrendered Jasbir Singh, accused, in the Court, after making strenuous efforts. He further submitted that the order impugned, being legal and valid be upheld. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the appeal, deserves to be partly accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is not that the accused, in the main case, after he Criminal Appeal No.493-SB of 2004 3 absented from the Court, was declared proclaimed offender. It is evident, that the surety after service of notice, under Section 446 Cr.P.C., made strenuous efforts, and, ultimately succeeded in getting surrendered Jasbir Singh, accused, in the Court. In these circumstances, the trial Court, in my considered opinion, was required to take a lenient view, in the matter of imposition of penalty. The ends of justice, shall be met, if the penalty, imposed upon the appellant, is suitably reduced. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, is partly accepted. The order impugned, is modified, in the manner, that the appellant, shall pay penalty, in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, instead of Rs. 30,000/-, imposed by the trial Court. 10. The Court below, is directed, to comply with the order, in accordance with the provisions of law. 17.03.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE