Prithvi Raj and Others vs The State of Rajasthan

B.R. Arora, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.92, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh, by which the learned Additional Session Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and maintained the order dated 6.6.89 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh.

One jeep bearing No. PUW-8-601 was seized in a criminal case, which, on the application filed by the petitioners, was given to them on Supurdginama on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surely in the like amount. The surety bonds and the Supurdginama were furnished by the petitioners. As per the bonds, they were required to produce the jeep in the Court on each and every date of hearing. They, also, furnished the bond to the effect that the jeep in question will not be sold during the pendency of the proceedings. The petitioners could not produce the jeep on the dates fixed for the production of the jeep and sold the same during the pendency of the case. As the jeep could not be produced, trial Court ordered for the forfeiture of the amount of the bonds and ordered for the recovery of the full amount thereof. Notices were issued to the surety and the petitioners. They filed their reply and the learned trial Court considered the application moved by the petitioners u/s 446(3) Cr.P.C. and rejected the same by his order dated 7.3.89. No appeal against that order was filed by the petitioners, by which the application u/s 446(3) Cr. P.C., moved by the petitioners, was rejected and that order became final. The proceedings for recovery of the amount were thereafter undertaken. When the recovery-proceedings were in progress, another application was moved by the petitioners u/s 446(3) Cr. P.C., which was also, dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 6.6.89. Dissatisfied with the order dated 6.6.89, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh (Camp Suratgarh) which was dismissed by him by his order dated 12.10.92. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the appeal, observed that the jeep in question was sold by Prithvi Raj and others without any prior permission from the Court and a case u/s 406 I.P.C. was also, instituted against him, which is pending and, therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly ordered for the forfeiture of the amount of the bonds, i.e., the Supardginama as well as the surety-bonds. It is against this order dated 12.10.92, that the petitioners have preferred this revision petition.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Supurdginama was submitted only for a period of one month and it has been specifically mentioned in the order date 12.10.92 that the petitioners should furnish the Fitness Certificate within a period of one month and if the Fitness Certificate is not furnished within a period of one month then the Supardginama and the Personal Bonds will stand cancelled. It has further been argued that in the order dated 12.10.92, it has not been mentioned that in case any contravention is made or the jeep is not produced then the order for foreiture will be passed and as there is no such condition in the order regarding forfeiture of the bonds, the order to this effect cannot be passed. It is, also, contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that bonds and the Supurdginama submitted by the petitioners are not legal and no confiscation order can be passed for foreiture of the amount of the Supardginama or that of the bonds. It is, also, contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the order of foreiture can be passed by the State as per the conditions in the Supurdginama and the Court has no such power. Lastly, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the learned Courts below have ordered for the forfeiture of the whole amount while some leniency should have been shown looking to the nature of the case an the whole amount should not have been foreited. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Courts below.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

By the order dated 12.10.92, passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, the learned Magistrate ordered for the delivery of the jeep on Supurdginama to petitioner Prithvi Raj on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a surety in the like amount and it was further observed that if he petitioner furnishes the Fitness Certificate within the period of one month then the delivery of the jeep may be given to him with the condition that he will not make any change in the jeep nor will he sell it to any person and if the Fitness Certificate is not produced by the petitioner within this time then the Supardginama will be cancelled. The petitioners, in pursuance to this order, furnished both the bonds, i.e., Supardginama and the surety bond and the delivery of the jeep was given to them. Neither the Sapurdginama nor the bonds were cancelled and the jeep was, also, not surrendered before the Court and, therefore, the Supardginama and the bonds continued as the jeep continues in their possession. As the personal bond and the surety-bonds were neither ordered to be cancelled by the Court nor any order for cancellation of the Supardginama and the surety bond was passed nor the delivery of the jeep was taken by the Court and the possession continued with the petitioners, therefore, the Supardginama and the surety bonds continues and the petitioners are bound by the conditions of the bonds furnished by them. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is, therefore, devoid of any force.

The next contention, raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the bonds were not legal and no confiscation can be ordered of these bonds, is, also, devoid of any force. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show how these bonds are not legally enforceable. The only contention, raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in this regard is that the order for forfeiture can be passed by the State Government only, as it has been mentioned in the Supurdginama furnished by the petitioners as well as in the bonds that in case the jeep is not produced on any date of hearing or its colour etc. will be changed or it will be sold or it will be dismantled then the State Government will be entitled for the recovery of Rs. 20,000/-. The bonds were executed in favour of the State and were produced in the Court and it is only after furnishing these bonds that the possession over the jeep was handed-over to the petitioners. When the bonds were furnished in the Court and the Court passed an order for the delivery of the possession over the jeep to the petitioners then the Court, before whom the bonds have been furnished or before whom the case is pending, has the power to order for the forfeiture of the bonds and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate does not require any interference.

Even otherwise, the order for forfeiture was passed by the learned Magistrate on 7.4.74, and the application u/s 446(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioners before the learned Magistrate which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 7.3.89. This order was not challenged by the petitioners either in an appeal or before this Court and that order has become final. Once the order for feiture of the amount became final, the petitioners cannot, now be allowed to agitate this point again which was heard and decided by the leaned Magistrate and the order has become final. In the order u/s 446(3) Cr.P.C, the Court has been given the discretion to remit any portion of penalty mentioned and enforce the order in part only. The petitioners sold the jeep in question during the pendency of the proceedings which was given to him on Supardginama and, therefore, if the Court did not think it proper to remit any portion of the penalty in its discretion then no illegality appears to have been committed by the learned lower Court. Both the Courts below have considered the contention of the petition in the right perspective and have rightly ordered for the forfeiture of the whole amount of the bonds and the orders passed by the Courts below do not require any interference.

In the result, I do not find any force in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.