Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AJAIB SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ajaib Singh v. State of Haryana - CRM-68777-M-2005 [2007] RD-P&H 1128 (1 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl.Misc. No.68777-M of 2005

Date of Decision:- 01.02.2007

Ajaib Singh ....Petitioner(s)

through

Mr.G.S.Kaura, Advocate.

vs.

State of Haryana ....Respondent(s)

through

Mr.R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

***

CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
***

SURYA KANT, J.

This petition is directed against the order dated 29.8.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Kaithal whereby a penalty of Rs.50,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner.

The petitioner stood surety and furnished the surety bonds for an undertrial, namely, Randhir Singh, who was accused of an offence under the N.D.P.S.Act. Randhir Singh-the accused absconded from the trial and was declared a proclaimed offender. The petitioner was also served with a notice under Section 446 Cr.P.C. but he having failed to respond to the same, the learned Judge, Special Court, Kaithal imposed the impugned penalty upon the petitioner.

It appears that subsequently the accused (Randhir Singh) surrendered before the Court and was later on acquitted on merits vide judgment 23.10.2003.

In view of the fact that the accused had absconded from the trial and was declared a proclaimed offender, per se, there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 29.8.2003 imposing penalty of Rs.50,000/- upon the petitioner.

However, having regard to the mitigating circumstances, namely, that the accused subsequently surrendered on his own and has been acquitted on merits, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case of reduction in the amount of penalty.

Consequently, this petition is partly allowed; the impugned order dated 29.8.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Kaithal, is modified to the extent that a penalty of Rs.25,000/- (instead of Rs.50,000/-) is imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount within a period of two months, failing which he shall be liable to pay the original penalty of Rs.50,000/- imposed upon him by the learned Special Judge, Kaithal.

February 01, 2007 ( SURYA KANT )

poonam JUDGE


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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