Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Nathuwa v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8010 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 18640 (5 December 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


(Court no. 43)

Criminal Appeal No. 8010 of 2007


Nathuwa son of Mahadeo,

Resident of mohalla Khaipar,

P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District

Banda. ...... Surety - Appellant.


State of U.P. ..... Respondent.


Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J

1.Appellant Nathuwa is surety of accused Santu in Special Trial No. 31 of 2004 , State Vs. Lakhan and others, pending before the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Banda.

2.The accused absented himself and the Court after forfeiting the bail bonds of accused ordered for separation of his Trial and for issuance of notice of notice under Section 446 Cr.P.C. to sureties including the appellant.

3.The appellant appeared in proceedings in Criminal Misc. Case No. 6/ XI/2007 before the Trial Court and on 3.11.2007 prayed for time, and the Court obliged fixing 22.11.2007 for producing the accused. On 22.11.2007, the appellant neither produced the accused nor filed any reply in this behalf and the Trial Court ordered for issuance of recovery warrant for an amount of penalty Rs. 40,000/- against him.

4.That is what brings the appellant here in appeal.

5.Heard Sri P.C. Chakravarti, counsel for the appellant and Sri Surendra Singh II, Additional Government Advocate for the State at the admission stage itself.

6.The counsel for the appellant contended that the Trial Court refused to take on record the objection of the appellant, which he wanted to file subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, saying order for recovery had already been passed. There is no force in this contention. If the Trial Court had refused to take on record the objection of the appellant, he could have filed it alongwith an application praying it be kept on record.

7.The next contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is 85 year of age with an infirm and frail body and is poor farmer and, therefore, that the amount of penalty, be reduced.

8.There is some force in this contention. Bundelkhand region in which District Banda falls is having scarce rains for many years and it is difficult to the farmers to eke their livelihood from farming. The amount of penalty from Rs. 40,000/- , is therefore, reduced to Rs. 20,000/-, which will be deposited by the appellant in the court within one and half month from today.

9.Appeal allowed to this extent.

Dt. 5.12.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.