IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.583 OF 2001 (OLD NO.23/1991) 1. Prem Chand S/o Asha Ram 2. Rajiv S/o Paras Ram Both resident of S.B.D. Chikitsalaya Saharanpur. ……… Appellants Versus The State ……… Respondent Dated: November 27, 2008 Sri Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the app ants ell Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This appeal, preferred by the appellants u/s 449 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the order dated 27.11.1990 passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Misc. Case No.9/1990, State Vs. Prem Chand & another, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has ordered the recovery of Rs.5,000/- each from the appellants under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. 2. I have heard Sri Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State and perused the entire material available on file. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the appellants were a surety of the accused-Satyendra Singh and therefore filed a surety bonds of Rs.5,000/- each for producing the accused-Satyendra Singh in the court on each and every date. The surety bonds of the appellants were forfeited on 24.4.1990 and the show cause notice was issued to the appellants and after service of the show-cause notice on to the appellants, time was given to the appellants for producing the accused before the court but the appellants could not produce the accused within time and also they themselves did not appeared on the date of hearing i.e. on 8.6.1990 before the court. Then on the same day i.e. on 8.6.1990, an order was passed against each of the appellant for recovery of the above said amount. Then show-cause notice was issued against the appellants and after service on to the appellants the appellants produced the accused before the trial court on 13.6.1990. But due to non-appearance on the date of hearing i.e. on 6.7.1990 again an order was passed against the appellants for the recovery of the amount as mentioned in the surety bonds i.e. of Rs.5,000/- each. After considering the fact that the appellants produced the accused in the trial court on 13.6.1990, learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar vide his order dated 24.8.1990 remitted the amount of surety bonds from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.2,000/-. It was also ordered that both the appellant shall deposit Rs.2,000/- each within 15 days. In default, whole of the amount i.e. Rs.5,000/- each will be recovered from the appellants. The appellants could not deposit the amount Rs.2,000/- each and therefore did not comply the order dated 24.8.1990 of the trial court. Hence, again an order was passed on 27.11.1990 against the appellants for the recovery of Rs.5,000/- each from the appellants. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 27.11.1990, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellant could not comply the order dated 24.8.1990 on account of advocates’ strike in the trial court. Hence, the amount awarded by the trial court i.e. Rs.2,000/- each against the appellants could not be deposited. He has further submitted that there is no intentional fault from the side of the appellants. I find substance in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. The ground shown by the appellants is reasonable. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the appellants are ready to deposit the fine i.e. of Rs.2,000/- each as awarded by learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 24.8.1990. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the order dated 27.11.1990 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Misc. Case No.9/1990 is hereby set aside. The appellants are directed to deposit Rs.2,000/- each as awarded by learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 24.8.1990. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Interim order dated 7.1.1991 stands vacated). (Dharam Veer, J.) 27.11.2008 RG