Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdev Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 March, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Crl.Revision No.1514 of 2010 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Revision No.1514 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision:01.03.2012
Gurdev Kaur and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: None for the petitioners.
Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
***
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)
One Sukhwnder Singh was convicted in a case FIR No.39 dated 10.08.2003 under Sections 302/364/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Talwandian, District Kapurthala, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide judgment dated 10.03.2005 and while undergoing life imprisonment. He was ordered to be released on parole of four weeks. He was ordered to be released on furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/-.
One Sarban Singh (Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants) had furnished the surety bond on 3.3.2006 for the release of the aforesaid convict on parole of 04 weeks. He was released on 10.04.2006 and was to return to jail on 09.05.2006. Since the aforesaid Sukhwinder Singh did not surrender on expiry of the parole period, proceedings against the surety/appellant were initiated under Section 446 Cr.P.C. He submitted his reply which was not found satisfactory and vide impugned order dated 12.07.2006, was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- Thereafter, he was directed to Crl.Revision No.1514 of 2010 (O&M) 2 deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the Government Treasury by the District Magistrate.
Sarban Singh aggrieved against the order of the District Magistrate, Kapurthala, filed an appeal on 8.8.2006. During the pendency of the appeal, Sarban Singh died on 30.08.2007. His LRs (petitioners) were brought on record in the proceedings before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. Before the appellate authority, petitioners did not raise any objection that the order of the District Magistrate, directing to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- suffers from any illegality. The only contention raised was that they were not liable to pay the amount in question. The said appeal was dismissed by the aforesaid Court vide judgment dated 13.11.2009. While passing the aforesaid order, the Additional Sessions Judge, observed as under:-
"For the sake of repetition, it is again clarified that there is no dispute between the parties regarding the facts of the present appeal and the facts upon the basis of which the District Magistrate has passed the order under appeal. Convict was undergoing life imprisonment. He was released on parole for four weeks, he he has not returned to the Jail. As such, it is a matter of grave concern. The only forceful contention being raised by the counsel for the appellant is that as per the authority cited above, the appellant is not liable to pay the amount in question. But the fact remains that the fcts of the cited authority, are distinguishable from the facts of the present appeal. Perusal of the cited authority shows that in the surety bonds furnished int eh case of cited authority, there was no condition regarding Crl.Revision No.1514 of 2010 (O&M) 3 the reporting back of the convict to the Jail after the expiry of 20 days temporary release. But perusal of the present surety bonds furnished by the present appellant Sarban Singh, shows that under condition No.3, he has undertaken that during his release on parole , convict will not violate the terms of the parole and on the expiry of parole period, he will return to the jail in time. As such, in this case, the appellant is bound by the terms and conditions of the surety bonds. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is liable to deposit the surety amount in the Government Treasury.
Although, counsel for the appellant has submitted that a lenient view may be taken, but the fact remains that in this case, convict Sukhwinder Singh was to serve life imprisonment in a murder case. During his Jail term, he was released on bail, but he has not returned to the Jail after the expiry of parole period. As such, no question to take a lenient view arises.
As per above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed, being without any merit. Trial court record alongwith a copy of this judgement, be sent back forthwith and appeal file be consigned to the Record room.
Pronounced in open Court.
Dated 13.11.2009"
The instant revision has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders. Along with the instant revision petition, petitioners further moved an application seeking condonation of dealy of 89 days in filing the petition.
Crl.Revision No.1514 of 2010 (O&M) 4
On 24.05.2010, notice of motion was issued in the application and also in the revision petition.
Thereafter, this Court on 19.07.2011, passed the following orders:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time to verify as to whether Sukhwinder Singh has surrendered/arrested by Police or not.
Adjourned to 07.11.2011.
On 07.11.2011, the following order was passed:-
"Learned State counsel is directed to verify as to whether Sukhwinder Singh has been arrested or not.
List on 04.01.2012."
On 04.01.2012, the following order was passed:-
"Learned State counsel has sought short adjournment to supply the information in compliance of the order dated 7.11.2011.
List on 1.3.2012."
Affidavit of Parminder Singh,PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Branch Kapurthala, District Kapurthala has been filed in the Court today and the same is taken on record.
According to the aforesaid affidavit, one Sukhwnder Singh s/o Hardit Singh resident of Village Khera Dona, P.S.Sadar, Kapurthala, was declared as Proclaimed Offender on 4.1.2008 by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala in FIR No.88 dated 1.8.2006, registered at P.S.Sadar, Kapurthala, District Kapurthala and has not been re-arrested till today. Crl.Revision No.1514 of 2010 (O&M) 5
No one is present on behalf of the petitioners to assist the Court.
In the present case, the petitioners have not even challenged the forfeiture order dated 12.07.2006 on merits. In fact, the surety had undertaken that the convict shall return to the jail on expiry of parole period and has surety bond was liable to be forfeited in case of undertaking of terms and release of convict on parole.
The only contention on behalf of the petitioners as made out from the grounds of revision is that after the dealth of Sarban Singh, the recovery cannot be effected from the LRs as the entire proceedings have abated. Reliance has been placed on Section 446 (4) Cr.P.C. which reads thus:-
"Where a surety to a bond dies before the bond is forfeited, his estate shall be discharged from all liablity in respect of the bond."
A perusal of the above provsions would show that the same is applicable in a case where the surety dies before the forfeiture of the surety bond. In this case forfeiture of the surety bond was ordered on 12.07.2006 against the surety Sarban Singh during his life time. There is no dispute that petitioners have inherited the estate of Sarban Singh. It is again not disputed that the amount of forfeiture was liable to be charged and recovered from the estate of said Sarban Singh. The order of forfeiture directly operates against the estate of deceased Sarban Singh i.e. the surety and the petitioners being the LRs of said surety are liable to clear the estate of Sarban Singh from such liablity.
Crl.Revision No.1514 of 2010 (O&M) 6
Thus, this Court finds no merit in the arguments raised in the grounds of the criminal revision and the same is hereby rejected.
Dismissed.
March 01, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE