iaT^I?T('f?!!R7 i^sn^twcfe K-*.^^'^^isS^^fe. K:"-""^'688%^ te -SvBi ^fWiftif, W^WW, (sf<?>l«3<: ant?r''raw (•y(-i«<<Er) •RgiW^fNan^i ^>l-4T<rf^1-i '^W^^^^ •^i<$i< ^3Jfipi3II%?[ ^.B. HON'BLE SHRI J1JISTICE DHIRENDRA MISHRA. J CRIMINAL Art AnneUant/Suretv Respondents 3.9.2007 Shri Govind Miri, cour Shri Neeraj Mehta, PL This appeal under S( Procedure is directed again; passed in MJC No. 44/07 Janjgir-Chainpa in a proc Cr.P.C. has forfeited the tote appellant for a sum of Rs.5C •EALNO. 701 OF 2007 Mahettar, S/o Nakchhed Caste - Suryavanshi, Aged about 80 years, R/o Village - Pangaon, P.S. 8s Tahsil - Pamgarh, Distt: Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate &, Collector, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Tehsildar Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir ChampafC.G.) isel for the appellant. |for the State/respondents. jcdon 449 of the Code of Criminal ^t the order dated 2nd August 2007 whereby learned Sessions Judge, seding under Section 446 of the ^l amount of surety furnished by the |,000/- for failure on the part of the XI-HC—78 75ST ^l-tfW'tl, Q'Jl.y'Ko, KfCil'y^i an^r wra; (ipf.iaj^) ^TOK ^!i?3 sii^r appellant to produce accus^d Umesh on 7.7.2007 in S.T. No. 46/06. the aB arid Leamed counsel for Umesh could not appear on| afccount of his illness, and his illness to hisiadvocate, his behalf by his &dvocate below directed issuance of Umesh and further directeB against the present appella4t should not be forfeited. He appeared before the trial 20.7.2007 along with an could not appear on 7.7.200' fever and as soon as he arrest against accused Uraes(h producing him before the <p< accused was arrested in the Leamed Sessions Judge "wit4o cause notice submitted by th| Rs.50,000/- being amount t(( law with an observation thdt ilkiess has been submitted. "without dii^T<?i''4t^ ^i*i<nl ^^si' <R»i+$i< •^SifiRSII^f appellant submits that accused 7.7.2007 before the trial Court on he could not communicate about tljierefore, no application was filed on in these circumstances the Court Iwarrant of arrest against accused issuance of show cause notice as to why the amount of surety |further submits that the appellant Qourt and submitted his reply on afftdavit and stated that the accused as he was suffering from seasonal about issuance of warrant of t, he was bringing the accused for ;ourt on 20.7.2007, however, the pourt premises on 20.7.2007 itself. considering reply to the show appellant, ordered for forfeiture of (twards surety, which is contrary to i4.t no medical certificate regarding letmt I-HC—78 3rcT "41'i<l^, lOtfly'ie, R)<?ll<riy an^r iracK ('ipf^sgt?) •a-svw ?f>i R-!W 'nSTT -3?^?? %)^!^i TOiRR'fffel 311^1 !!S;-;rgSSai B! <^i^i<?tift^ "Hw?if^i^zt' <n>t^.« ^sifinsii^f On the other h^nd, learned counsel for the State/respondents supports] Taking into consideraji filed by the appellant before] by an affidavit stnd further) Umesh was arresfed on th^ i. 2007 while he was'*being ta. the appeal preferred by the of forfeiture of Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,000/- be forfeited. jtion the reply to show cause notice |the Court below, which is supported considering the fact that accused next date of hearing i.e. 20th July ;en to the Court for his appearance, ^ppellant is partly allowed and order set aside and instead thereof, only the impugned order. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge