Delhi District Court
Ved Pal Rana vs The State on 15 January, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SH RAJ PAUL SINGH TEJI:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:DELHI
Crl. Revision No. 80/06
Ved Pal Rana
S/o Sh Kanwal Singh
R/o 552, Khera Kalan,
Delhi. ........
Revisionist
Versus
The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
......... Respondent
O R D E R
1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 12.9.2006 passed by Sh Ajay Pandey, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in the case titled as State Vs. Ram Dev Yadav, FIR No. 240/2002, U/s 279/337/304A IPC vide which Ld. M.M. has forfeited the surety bond and has imposed the penalty of Rs. 15,000/- upon the revisionist/surety.
2. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the revisionist as well as Ld. APP for the State and carefully perused the impugned order dated 12.9.2006.
3. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that order dated 12.9.2006 is against the law and facts on record and the same is unsustainable. Ld. Counsel has further argued tht Ld. M.M. has failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 446 Cr.P.C. while imposing the penalty of Rs.15000/- upon the surety/appellant. He has further submitted that in the present case, accused Ram Dev Yadav could not appear on 17.4.2006 and Ld. M.M. issued NBWs against the accused and notice U/s 446 Cr.P.C. to the revisionist/surety for 13.10.2006. It has been further submitted that prior to the service of the notice U/s 446 Cr.P.C. on the revisionist, accused himself appeared before the court on 26.4.2006 and that accused was taken into custody and on 1.5.2006 he was again admitted to bail and fresh surety of Sh Mohinder Singh Baweja with new bail bond was executed and the same was accepted. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that on 7.6.2006 revisionist moved an application for release of his RC as the same was no longer required to be kept because new surety has been admitted in respect of the accused Ram Dev Yadav. It has been submitted that the said application was dismissed by the Ld. Trial court and a fresh notice U/s 446 Cr.P.C. was served upon the applicant/revisionist. It has been further submitted that as the notice U/s 446 Cr.P.C. was for 13.10.2006 hence revisionist appeared before the Ld. Trial court on 13.10.2006 and found that name of revisionist was not listed in the cause list and on inspection of the file, it was found that on 12.9.2006 a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- has been imposed upon the revisionist and A/Ws has been ordered to be issued for 20.10.2006. It has been submitted that non-appearance of the surety/revisionist on 12.9.2006 is not deliberate and intentional but due to the confusion created by the notice U/s 446 Cr.P.C. wherein the next date of hearing was mentioned as 13.10.2006. On these grounds, it is prayed that present revison be accepted and impugned order dated 12.9.2006 imposing the penality upon the revisionist be set-aside
4. I have considered the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist as well as Ld.APP for the State and carefully perused the material available on record. On perusal of record, it is revealed that two notices U/s 446 Cr.P.C. were served upon the revisionist which are of dated 18.4.2006 & 7.06.2006. In the notice dt.18.4.2006 revisionist had been asked to appear & file reply on 13.10.2006 whereas in the notice dt 7.6.2006 there is no mention of date and simply revisionist has been asked to pay the said penality or show cause before the next date of hearing that why payment of the said sum should not be enforced against him. Thus, I agree with the submissions of Ld. Counsel for revisionist that absence of revisionist on 12.9.2006 was not deliberate but due to non-mentioning of the next date in the second notice which was served upon the revisionist on 7.6.2006. Record further shows that prior to the service of the notice upon the revisionist, accused himself appeared before the court on 26.4.2006 and was taken into custody and on 1.5.2006 he was again admitted to bail and fresh surety of Sh Mohinder Singh Baweja with new bail bond was executed and the same was accepted. Once accused himself has appeared prior to the service of the notice upon the revisionist & also furnished new surety, Ld. Trial court should have discharged the earlier instead of serving fresh notice U/s 446 Cr.P.C. upon him. In my view, the order of imposing penality upon the revisionist is illegal and requires interference of this court.
5. For the foregoing reasons, I allow the present appeal & set-aside the impugned order 12.9.2006 to the extent of imposing the penalty of Rs.
15,000/- upon the surety/revisionist. TCR be sent back alongwith the copy of the order. Appeal file be consigned to R/R. ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (RAJ PAUL SINGH TEJI) ON 15.1.2007 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:DELHI