Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 20.08.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 20 August, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:7211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.279 of 2024 Date of Decision: 20.08.2024 .
_______________________________________________________ Balak Ram@ Bale Ram (since deceased) through his LR Megh Singh .......Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
... Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Appellant: Mr. Loveneesh Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 1-State.
None for respondents No. 2 to 8.
_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Instant criminal appeal filed under Section 449 (ii) of Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to orders dated 25.05.2023 and 28.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Cr.MA No. 109 of 2023 titled as State of H.P. Versus Balak Ram @ Bale Ram, whereby learned Court below, after having ordered forfeiture of surety bond furnished by the deceased appellant, ordered imposition of penalty to the tune of Rs.1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 20:33:52 :::CIS 22024:HHC:7211 1,00,000/- on the appellant on account of his failure to cause presence of the accused in Session Trial.
.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that FIR No. 36 of 2017 dated 06.03.2017 under Sections 20 & 29 of ND & PS Act, was registered at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P. against the persons namely Gurditta Singh and Ankush Singla. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, which is pending adjudi-
cation. Deceased appellant stood surety for co-accused namely Ankush Singla, while he was enlarged on bail in Sessions Trial. Ac-
cused named hereinabove despite notice failed to put in appearance in the trial and as such, Court issued notice to surety i.e. deceased appellant-Balak Ram @ Bale Ram with a direction to cause presence of the accused. However, fact remains that deceased appellant was unable to secure presence of the accused and as such, learned Court below initiated proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C against him.
Vide order dated 16.01.2023, learned Special Judge, Mandi, ordered forfeiture of surety bonds in favour of State of HP and initiation of proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 25.05.2023, learned Special Judge, Mandi, being not satisfied with the explanation rendered on record by the appellant for not causing appearance of the ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 20:33:52 :::CIS 3 2024:HHC:7211 accused in the sessions trial, imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-
undertaken to be paid by the surety in case of default.
.
3. On 29.10.2023, surety Balak Ram @ Bale Ram expired and as such, amount of penalty ordered to be recovered vide order dated 25.05.2023 could not be recovered. Vide order dated 11.01.2024, learned Special Judge, Mandi, issued notice to legal representative of deceased surety Balak Ram @ Bale Ram, returnable for 28.03.2024. On 28.03.2024, learned Special Judge, Mandi, without affording an oppotunity of being heard to legal representative of surety, issued fresh warrant of recovery to the learned Collector for recovery of amount from the legal representative of surety. In the aforesaid background, appellant, who is legal heir of surety namely Balak Ram @ Bale Ram has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, prayering therein to set-aside the orders dated 16.01.2023, 25.05.2023 and 28.03.2024.
4. Mr. Loveneesh Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant, vehmently argued that at the time of passing of order dated 28.03.2024, whereby fresh warrant of recovery came to be issued to the learned Collector for recovery of the amount from the legal representative of the surety Balak Ram @ Bale Ram, adequate opportunity of being heard was required to be given to the legal representative of aforesaid surety before issuance of warrant of ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 20:33:52 :::CIS 4 2024:HHC:7211 recovery. He submitted that bare persual of order dated 28.03.2024 nowhere suggests that learned Court below gave an opportunity to .
the appellant to explain his stand, rather it, having taken note of earlier orders dated 16.01.2023 and 25.05.2023 straightaway ordered for issuance of fresh warrant of recovery. Mr. Thakur, further submitted that bare persual of orders dated 16.01.2023 and 25.05.2023 nowhere suggest that effort, if any, was ever made by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, to ascertain that after initiation of proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, steps, if any, were taken by the predecessor-in-interest of appellant for the securing presence of main accused in the session trial. He submitted that since adequate steps were taken by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant for causing presence of main accused in the session trial, but for the reason beyond his control, he was unable to secure presence of the accused, there was no occasion, if any, for the Court to order forfeiture of surety bond and imposition of penalty, which otherwise is on higher side.
5. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while opposing the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of appellant contends that since predecessor-in-interest of the appellant failed to cause presence of accused as was otherwise undertaken by him, while furnishing surety bonds, no illegality can be said to have been ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 20:33:52 :::CIS 5 2024:HHC:7211 committed by the learned Court below, while imposing penalty of Rs.
1,00,000/-. He further submits that order of imposition of penalty of .
Rs. 1,00,000/- was passed prior to the death of predecessor-in-
interest of the appellant and once it is not in dispute that appellant herein is the legal representative of the person, who stood surety for accused Ankush Singla, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Court below, while passing order dated 28.03.2024, thereby ordering issuance of warrant of recovery for recovery of amount from the legal representative of the deceased surety.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court though finds no illegality in the impugned orders dated 16.01.2023 and 25.05.2023 because in the event of non-appearance of the accused in trial, it was duty of the surety (Balak Ram) to cause presence of the accused, but once he failed to cause presence of the accused, surety amount mentioned in the surety bonds was rightly ordered to be recovered from him. In the case at hand, this Court finds that before initiation of proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, notice was issued to the predecessor-in-
interest of the appellant, but yet he failed to cause presence of the accused and as such, Court after initiation of proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., rightly ordered imposition of penalty. However, ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 20:33:52 :::CIS 6 2024:HHC:7211 this Court finds force in the submission of Mr. Loveneesh Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant, that once appellant was unable to .
render on record explanation qua non-appearance of accused during trial, learned Court below ought to have dropped the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. or it would have imposed minor penalty.
7. Question, which now remains to be considered is, 'whether this court can reduce the amount of penalty imposed by learned court below or not?
8. Before finding answer to the same, S. 446(3) Cr.P.C, may be taken note of, which reads as under:
"446. Procedure when bond has been forfeited.
(1) Where a bond under this Code is for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court and it is proved to the satisfaction of that Court, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, that the bond has been forfeited, or where, in respect of any other bond under this Code, it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which the bond was taken, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, or of the Court of any Magistrate of the first class, that the bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid.
Explanation.- A condition in a bond for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court shall be construed as including a condition for appearance, or as the case may be, for production of property, before any Court to which the case may subsequently be transferred.
(2) If sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same as if such ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 20:33:52 :::CIS 7 2024:HHC:7211 penalty were a fine imposed by it under this Code. 1 provided that where such penalty is not paid and cannot be recovered in the manner aforesaid, the person so bound as surety shall be liable, by order of the Court .
ordering the recovery of the penalty, to imprisonment in civil jail for a term which may extend to six months.] (3) The Court may, at its discretion, remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only. (4) Where a surety to a bond dies before the bond is forfeited, his estate shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the bond.
(5) Where any person who has furnished security under section 106 or section 117 or section 360 is convicted of an offence the commission of which constitutes a breach of the conditions of his bond, or of a bond executed in lieu of his bond under section 448, a certified copy of the judgment of the Court by which he was convicted of such offence may be used as evidence in proceedings under this section against his surety or sureties, and,; if such certified copy is so used, the Court shall presume that such offence was committed by him unless the contrary is proved."
9. Section 446 (3) Cr.P.C, clearly empowers a court to, at its discretion, remit any portion of penalty in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
10. Careful perusal of S.446 (1) Cr.P.C reveals that it is in two parts, first part deals with the forfeiture of bond and second part, with payment of penalty. After having forfeited bonds furnished by an accused or a surety, court can either impose penalty of entire surety amount or it may be decided by the court after hearing the surety. In the case at hand, it has been averred on behalf of the ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 20:33:52 :::CIS 8 2024:HHC:7211 appellant/surety, that he is not in a position to pay entire amount of surety bond i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- and in the event of his being compelled .
to do so, he may have to sell his property, as a consequence of which the entire family of surety would suffer.
11. Otherwise also, while passing order with regard to imposition of penalty, for not causing appearance of the accused, crucial issue is to find out whether the accused had failed to appear for genuine and justifiable reason and also whether the sureties were at fault in not securing attendance of the accused. All the attending circumstances are to be taken into consideration by court, while imposing penalty, consequent upon forfeiture of surety bonds.
12. Since in the case at hand, predecessor-in-interest of appellant made sincere efforts to cause presence of the accused in the trial, and on account of order of imposition of penalty by learned court below, serious prejudice may be caused him, learned court below, while imposing penalty, ought to have been little considerate/lenient. Reliance is placed upon judgment passed by Kerala High Court in Jameela Khader v. State of Kerala, 2004 Crl.
L.J. 3389, wherein, it has been held as under:
"7. As mentioned earlier, the petitioners were directed to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on them for their failure to produce the accused before the Court on the date fixed for hearing. Su-section (2) of Section 446 provides that if the sureties do not show sufficient cause and they do not pay the penalty imposed on them, the Court may proceed to recover the same as though it is a fine imposed by the Court under the Code. If recovery becomes impossible, the ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 20:33:52 :::CIS 9 2024:HHC:7211 sureties are liable to suffer imprisonment in civil jail for a term which may extend to six months.
8. There is no dispute that sub-Section (3) of Section 446 empowers the Court to use its discretion to remit any portion of the penalty and enforce payment of only part of the penalty. Clause 3 of Section 446 .
reads as hereunder:¬ "3) The Court may, at its discretion, remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in party only."
It is true that the above provision does not specify at what state the Court can remit the penalty. But the preceding clause make it clear that the Court can impose penalty only after recording proof of forfeiture and after issuing show cause notice.
9. The short question are:
(1) Can the Court which forfeits the bond of the surety remit or order part payment of the penalty after imposing such penalty?
(2) Can the Criminal Court reopen or review its earlier order of imposition of penalty to invoke the power of discretion as provided under Sub-Section (3) of Section 446?."
10. On a perusal of the provisions in Section 446, it is evident that a bond which has been executed either for appearance of accused or production of property shall be forfeited the moment it is proved that a condition in the bond has been violated. For instance, if the accused fails to appear on the day on which he has been directed to appear, the Magistrate is empowered to forfeit the bond of the accused as well as that of the sureties forthwith. Of course, the Court must be satisfied that the condition in the bond has been violated. Thus it can be seen that the power vested with the Court to forfeit the bond is unfettered. However, clause (1) of Section 446 provides that the Court shall record the grounds of proof of forfeiture. Thereafter the Court may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty or to show cause why it should not be paid. Thus clause (1) of Section 446 clearly indicates that the forfeiture of a bond for breach of any of the conditions is almost an inevitable or automatic consequence. It is then for the surety to explain the reasons for the breach. Clause (2) of Section 446 stipulates that if sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid the Court may proceed to recover it. The proviso to clause (2) deals with the consequences of failure to pay the penalty. The person who is bound as surety is liable to suffer imprisonment in civil jail if he fails to pay the penalty imposed.
11. A reading of the above two clauses of Section 446 clearly shows that forfeiture of the bond and payment of penalty would follow as a natural consequence for breach of any of the conditions of the bond. The quantum of penalty may be the entire amount covered under the bond or it may be as decided by the Court after hearing the surety. It is provided in clause (1) that "the Court may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid" (emphasis supplied). Nevertheless, the Court can exonerate the surety from payment of penalty, if it is satisfied that there are valid reasons for the failure to produce the accused or the property. The Court can exercise its discretion in the matter after hearing the surety. The court can remit any portion of the penalty and direct the surety to pay only a portion thereof."
::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 20:33:52 :::CIS 102024:HHC:7211
12. But incidentally, it may be noticed that by the subsequent introduction of Section 446-A in the Code, the situation is slightly different. If the bond is executed for appearance of an accused and the bond is cancelled due to his failure to appear, then the court can forfeit the bond. His release can be ordered "upon the execution of .
a fresh personal bond............with one or more of such sureties". No penalty is envisaged under Section 446-A. More importantly the provisions contained in Section 446-A are "without prejudice to the provisions of Section 446".
13. However, the question that has arisen in this case is at what stage the court can use its discretion to remit a portion of the penalty if the bond is cancelled under Section 446. Evidently the court which forfeits the bond has to necessarily consider all facts and circumstances before imposing the penalty. There may be situations where the accused might have been prevented from appearance in Court due to valid reasons beyond his control. Instances may be numerous and variegated depending on factual situations which cannot be enumerated. But the crucial issue is to find out whether the accused had failed to appear before the Court for genuine and justifiable reasons and also whether the sureties were at fault in failing to procure the attendance of the accused. All the attendant circumstances have to be considered by the Court while imposing the penalty consequent on the forfeiture. Question of remission of penalty or enforcement of payment only in part is also to be considered at that stage. In my view, the discretion has to be exercised at the time when the penalty is imposed and not at any later stage. In that view of the matter, the order impugned cannot be faulted.
14. But learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court can exercise the power of discretion at any stage. He places reliance on a few reported decisions in support of his contention.
15. In Balraj S. Kapoor v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 Bombay 365, it was held that the Court can remit a portion of the penalty invoking its discretionary power under Section 514(5) of 1898 Code (Section 446(3) of the 1973 Code) even at a subsequent stage.
16. In Sualal Mushilal v. State, AIR 1954 M.P. 231, it was held that the power to remit a portion of the penalty in exercise of its power under Clause (5) of Section 514 of the 1898 Code (corresponding to Section 446(3) of 1973 Code) could be exercised so long as the payment of any portion of the penalty remains unenforced. Though the circumstances which justify remission of a portion of the penalty have to be considered by the Court before it proceeds to consider the answer of the surety to the show cause notice, still the Court could remit any portion of the penalty if such circumstances occur subsequent to the order of recovery so long as the amount was not totally recovered.
17. In Moola Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1982 Crl.L.J. 2333, the High Court of Rajasthan held as follows:
"Even after passing the final order forfeiting the bond for appearance in Court and for recovery of the whole amount of penalty under the bond, the Court under Section 446(3) can remit any portion of the penalty so long as the amount is not totally recovered. There is nothing in Section 446(3) to show that an order remitting any portion of the penalty and enforcing payment of part thereof can be passed by the Court only at the time it ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 20:33:52 :::CIS 11 2024:HHC:7211 passed the final order directing forfeiture of the bond and realisation of the amount thereof as penalty."
In the above decision the learned Single Judge had followed Balraj Kapoor's case and Sualal Mushilal's case mentioned supra.
18. Sri. Mohammed Anzar, learned counsel for the petitioners .
submits that judicial precedents mentioned above are unanimous in the view that the court which imposes the penalty after forfeiture of the bond can remit the penalty or direct that only a portion thereof be paid. This can be done even at a subsequent stage. But I find it difficult to agree with the above proposition.
19. In Balraj Kapoor's case (supra), the learned Judge of the Bombay High Court had observed that:
"........ it seems to me that the better View is that the Court is called upon to require the surety to pay the amount of the penalty or to remit a portion of the penalty as soon as the bond is forfeited. It is at that stage that the Court is called upon to consider the question as to whether the entire amount of the penalty should be ordered to be paid or only a portion of the amount should be ordered to be paid.......
The question whether the discretion is to be exercised at a subsequent stage or at the stage when the Court calls upon the surety to pay the amount of the penalty is, I think, not free from difficulty. It is, I think, possible to take the view that the Court may, in its discretion, remit a portion of the penalty and enforce payment in part only even at a subsequent stage. But I would prefer to say that the Court can insist upon the payment of the entire amount of the penalty or may make an order remitting a portion of the penalty as soon as the bond is forfeited and the Court is called upon to apply its mind to the matter........"
20. I am inclined to agree with the above observation in the judgment, though it was ultimately held by the learned Judge that the Court can remit the penalty even at a subsequent stage.
21. There is yet another reason to take the above view. A criminal Court does not have the power to review or re-open its own order. In this case the order that was passed imposing a penalty of Rs.
5,000/- each had become final. Therefore, the Court could not have reopened or reviewed its own earlier order as requested by the petitioners.
22. However, the discretion vested in the Court by virtue of Clause (3) of Section 446 can be exercised by the appellate or revisional court if the order is challenged as provided under the Code. The appellate or revisional Court, as the case may be, can always consider, even at a later stage, whether there are circumstances warranting remission of penalty.
23. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that in the case on hand, the petitioners had a remedy to challenge the impugned order before the Sessions Court by filing an appeal. It is contended that this petition under Section 482 of the Code cannot be entertained since the petitioners had not resorted to the remedy available to them. It is true that an appeal is provided under Section 449 of the Code which enables the aggrieved party to file an appeal against "all orders passed under Section 446". If the impugned order is passed by a Magistrate, an appeal shall lie to the Sessions Court. In the case of an order made by a Court of ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 20:33:52 :::CIS 12 2024:HHC:7211 Sessions, an appeal lies before the High Court. Therefore there is force in the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners are not without any remedy as provided under the Code.
24. But in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to direct the petitioners to approach the Appellate Court.
.
This Court can always consider the question whether an order passed by the inferior court is just or legal. If there is any illegality or irregularity, this Court can always interfere in order to meet the ends of justice.
13. Co-ordinate Bench of this court in similar facts and circumstances also remitted portion of penalty imposed by learned court below in Cr. Appeal No. 221 of 2021 titled Ram Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 18.11.2021, observing as under:
"Prima facie, this Court does not find any infirmity with the order passed by learned Court below because when the appellant stood surety for the accused and thereafter accused did not appear in the Court of law to face the trial, but natural, the appellant has to face the consequences. However, during the course of arguments this fact has gone un-rebutted that the appellant is poor person and he had made sincere effort to locate the whereabouts of the accused and as such, the amount of penalty imposed upon the appellant can be said to be on higher side."
14. No doubt, in the instant case, appellant being legal representative of deceased surety is under obligation to clear dues or pay the debt of his predecessor-in-interest, especially when, there is material to show that he has inherited the estate of deceased, but having perused order dated 28.03.2024, this Court is persuaded to ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 20:33:52 :::CIS 13 2024:HHC:7211 agree with Mr. Loveneesh Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant, that learned Court below, while ordering issuance of warrant of .
recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- against legal representative of deceased surety, failed to ascertain correctness of the version put-forth by the appellant that he does not have sufficient means to pay the amount of penalty. Though zimni orders placed on record reveal that learned Court below after having taken note of factum of death of deceased surety Balak Ram @ Bale Ram, issued notice to the legal representative of surety i.e. appellant herein, but certainly perusal of order dated 28.03.2024 nowhere suggests that he was provided opportunity to put-forth his stand, especially with regard to his financial capacity to pay the amount of penalty imposed vide order dated 25.05.2023. Since predecessor-in-interest of the appellant failed to cause presence of the accused, for whom, he had stood surety, though no illegality can be said to have been committed by learned Court below, while ordering forfeiture of surety bonds and imposition of penalty, but certainly amount of penalty imposed by the learned Court below appears to be on higher side and as such, same needs to be reduced.
15. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made herein above and the law taken into consideration, this Court, is of the view that the discretion vests in this Court, under S.446 (3) Cr.P.C, to remit ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 20:33:52 :::CIS 14 2024:HHC:7211 the penalty. Since in the instant case, appellant, who is LR of surety, is not a man of sufficient means, quantum of penalty imposed by .
learned Court below while forfeiting sureties exercising power under S.446 Cr.P.C, deserves to be modified.
16. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and orders dated 25.05.2023 and 28.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Cr.MA No. 109 of 2023 titled as State of H.P. Versus Balak Ram @ Bale Ram, are modified to the extent that the appellant shall pay penalty of Rs.20,000/- only, which shall be deposited within two months with the learned trial Court, from the date of passing of this order.
The appeal stands accordingly disposed of, alongwith all pending applications, if any.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 20, 2024 (sunil) ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 20:33:52 :::CIS