Marimuthu and Another

Maheswaran, J.—One Arulsundaram who is said to have committed certain offences under the Sea Customs Act was released on conditional bail by the High Court of Madras in Crl. M.P. No. 374 of 1977. The condition was that he should execute a bond for Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each; to the satisfaction of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, with certain other conditions with which we are not concerned now. The revision petitioners stood as sureties and each executed a bond for Rs.10,000/-, At Arulsuadaram was absconding, the sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattanam for whose satisfaction, the bonds were executed, proceeded under S. 466, Crl. P.C. and forfeited the bonds and imposed on each of them a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.

The revision petitioners appealed against the order of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, before the sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, who confirmed that order of the Magistrate. The revision petitioners are aggrieved and have'' filed this revision.

Though from the memorandum of7 grounds of revision, I find that the revision petitioners have taken a ground the provisions of S. 446, Crl. P.

c. have not been complied with, that contention was not pressed before me by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. Further I could not locate any mistake in the procedure followed by the trial Court in for feinting the bonds.

The learned counsel appealed to this Court to exercise its discretion sympathetic call to reduce the liability under the surety bond. The justification for this plea is that the revision petitioners are not very rich persons but possess properties valued at Rs. 12,000/- only and to impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- would practically rule them.

A similar appeal was made before the learned Appellate Judge who while rejecting the appeal observed, ""The Court should not simply be swayed by tin-attractive submissions as has been made by the Learned Counsel, but on the other hand, the long and strong arm of law should be extended to its full length and rigor in giving a terrific blow so that it may serve as a lesson for others.

In commenting on these observations, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners pointed out that the petitioner did not know in person the accused Arulsundaram and that they were persuaded by one Somu Chettiar of their village to stand as sureties and that it was misrepresented to them that the said Arulsundaram was involved in a prohibition offence. An affidavit to that effect is now filed before this Court.

In K. Sivaswami, In re: Veeraswami, J. as he then was, dealt with the intention of forfeiture of bond. The learned Judge observed:

Though the bond implies a contractual obligation which could be fully enforced if the State so chose, subject, of course, to the directions of this Court under S. 514(5). Crl. P.C, it has to be remembered that the forfeiture is intended to serve a larger purpose than the mere realisation of the amount undertaken to be paid under the surety bond. In a sense the forfeiture may be penalty. In another sense it is not a penalty In the same sense as a fine is imposed on a person or conviction for an offence.

I adopt these observations with respect:

Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have sworn to an affidavit stating that it was represented to them that the case was one under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and having regard also to the fact that the revision petitioners are possessed of properties valued at only Rs. 12,000/-

(See the certificate of the Village Karnam), I feel that this is a fit case where the discretion of this Court should be exercised in reducing the penalty.

I direct each of the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/-. To that extent the liability of each of the petitioners in the bond executed by them will stand reduced. In other respects, the revision is dismissed.