Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 446A crpc in Mr A P N Rao vs State Of Karnataka on 15 November, 2018Matching Fragments
3. The office has raised objection regarding maintainability of the petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of this Court in Sadananda Vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1985 KAR 2813 submits that order of forfeiture of the bond under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. is a final order and therefore, revision petition lies.
5. Section 446 of Cr.P.C. prescribes the procedure to be followed after forfeiture of the bond. Whereas, Section 446A of Cr.P.C. which is included by way of amendment under Act 63 of 1980 with effect from 23.9.1980 provides for cancellation/forfeiture of the bond.
6. In the case on hand, the trial Court has not passed the order under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. But the order is passed under Section 446A of Cr.P.C. for forfeiture of the bond. The stage of issuing notice to the surety and holding the enquiry as required under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. arises only after registering the case under Section 446 of Cr.P.C.
7. In Sadananda's case referred to supra, the revision petition was filed against the order of imposition of penalty after forfeiting the bond. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable.