# Nizamuddin & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 172
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3318 of 2022
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nizamuddin-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-50088
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 83, 446 & 446(3) -
Criminal Revision - filed on the ground that,
the order impugned is illegal and against the
weight of evidence on record - maintainability
of revision - court finds that, when the
sureties produced the accused in the Court
before that the amount of the surety bonds
had been forfeited - From the principles laid
down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, it is
clear that, even after forfeiture of the surety
bonds, order of remission may be passed
adopting lenient view if the accused had been
produced by the sureties in the Court
concerned - Revision disposed of - impugned
order modified, direction accordingly.
 (Para - 14, 19, 20)

Criminal Revision Disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 172
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3318 of 2022

Nizamuddin & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Safiullah

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 83, 446 & 446(3) -
Criminal Revision - filed on the ground that,
the order impugned is illegal and against the
weight of evidence on record - maintainability
of revision - court finds that, when the
sureties produced the accused in the Court
before that the amount of the surety bonds
had been forfeited - From the principles laid
down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, it is
clear that, even after forfeiture of the surety
bonds, order of remission may be passed
adopting lenient view if the accused had been
produced by the sureties in the Court
concerned - Revision disposed of - impugned
order modified, direction accordingly.
 (Para - 14, 19, 20)

Criminal Revision Disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rajpal Vs St. of U.P., 2009 Crl.L.J. 160,

2. Jagannath Vs St. of U.P., 2008 (6) AllLJ 696
(All),

3. Jamila Khader Vs St. of Kerala, 2004 CrLJ
3389 Kerala,
4. Mohd. Kunju Vs St. of Karn., AIR 2000 SC 6,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Shri Safiullah learned
counsel for the revisionists and Shri Pankaj
Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. This revision has been preferred
against
judgement
and
order
dated
12.5.2022 passed by Special Judge POCSO
Act Sambhal at Chandausi in Criminal
Misc. Case No. 09 of 2022, Computer Case
No. 76 of 2022 (State Vs. Chandrapal and
Others) arising out of S.S.T. No. 34 of
2020 (State Vs. Faisal) Case Crime No. 207
of 2020 Police Station- Behjoi Disttrict-
Sambhal.

3. By the impugned order, the Court
below has ordered the revisionists to
deposit Rs. 50,000/- as surety amount after
forfeiture of surety of entire amount of Rs.
1,00000/-.

4. The present revision has been filed
on the ground that the order is illegal and
against the weight of evidence on record
and based on surmises and conjuncture.
The revisionists were not aware of the
proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C.
against them, when they came to know,
they searched the accused -Faisal and asked
him to surrender before the Court below.
The revisionists are very poor persons and
do labour work to earn their livelihood.
They went to Delhi for labour work and
their family had no knowledge of the
aforesaid proceedings launched against
them.
The
revisionists
moved
an
application 9 B before the Court below to
remit the amount on the aforesaid ground
but the Court below remitted the amount to
4 All. Nizamuddin & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
173
the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited
within two days. The Court below taken the
custody of accused and sent him to jail,
therefore , the impugned order is against
the law and not sustainable in the eye of
law and liable to be set-aside. If this Court
does not remit the surety amount of Rs
50,000/-, the revisionists shall suffer
irreparable loss and injury.

5. The copy of the impugned order
alongwith affidavit has been annexed with
the revision.

6. Vide order dated 15.10.2022 this
Court had allowed Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. and both the revisionists
had executed surety bond in compliance of
order of this Court for release of the
accused Faisal. Perusal of order dated
31.3.2022 shows that in spite of process
under Section 83, the accused Faisal did
not appear, therefore, notices were issued
to the revisionists which were served upon
them; consequently surety bonds were
forfeited and a criminal misc. Case U/S 446
Cr.P.C. was registered and an order was
passed to recover the surety amount of
Rupees
one
lakh
through
District
Magistrate Sambhal.

7. On 10.5.2022 accused-Faisal
appeared and requested to take him into
judicial custody and thereafter further
proceeding of the sessions trial was
conducted. It is orally informed by learned
counsel for the revisionists that after
conclusion of the trial, the accused Faisal
has been convicted.

8. Before the trial Court, both the
revisionists moved an application on
10.5.2022 stating that they were not
knowing
that
accused
Faisal
is
absconding; after coming to know, they
searched the accused at the probable
places but he had gone to the eastern part
of the country. They could not know
about the recovery proceeding, when they
found the accused, they brought him
before the Court and prayed that the
accused may be taken into custody and
recovery proceeding against them be
terminated.

9. After hearing the revisionists, the
trial Court concluded that though the
sureties have produced the accused on
10.5.2022 but before that the surety
amount of the surety bond had already
been forfeited in favour of the State under
Section 446 (3) Cr.P.C. After recording
the reason, the Court remitted the amount
to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and directed
to deposit the amount of Rs. 50,000/-
instead of Rs. 1,00000/- within two days.

10. Against the aforesaid order the
revisionists have preferred this revision
on the ground that they are very poor
labour and anyhow they are pulling on
their life and anyhow feeding themselves
and their family members; they are
unable to pay such a huge amount; they
should either totally be exempted from
depositing such amount or a meagre
amount may be directed to be deposited
by them within reasonable time.

11. Section 446 (3) Cr.P.C. reads as
under;

"the Court may after recording
its reason for doing so, remit any part of
the
penalty
mentioned
and
enforce
payment in part only."

12. In Rajpal Vs. State of U.P., 2009
Crl.L.J. 160, "where the sureties have
produced the accused before the Court, a
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
lenient view may be taken in matter of
recovery of surety amount.

13. In Jagannath Vs State of U.P.,
2008 (6) ALJ 696 (All), it has been held that
"where the surety appeared before the Court,
his application for discharge and remission of
penalty would not be rejected merely on the
ground that the Court has already passed
order for forfeiture of whole amount."

14. In this case though the trial Court
has exercised its jurisdiction under Section
446 (3) Cr.P.C., it has also been noted that
when the sureties produced the accused in the
Court before that the amount of the surety
bonds had been forfeited. From the principles
laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedents,
it is clear that even after forfeiture of the
surety bonds, order of remission may be
passed adopting lenient view if the accused
had been produced by the sureties in the
Court concerned.

15. In Jamila Khader Vs. State of
Keral, 2004 CrLJ 3389 Kerala, it has been
held that "the Appellate or Revisional Court,
as the case may be, can always consider,
even at a later stage, where there are
circumstances
warranting
remission
of
penalty."

16. In Mohd. Kunju Vs. State of
Karnataka, AIR 2000 SC 6, "the surety
amount of Rs. 25,000/- was remitted to
Rs.5,000/- only i.e. 1/5th of the total amount"

17. In Jamila Khader (supra) instead of
ordering to pay whole amount of Rs. 5,000/-
only Rs. 5,00/- was directed to be deposited,
after remission.

18. During the course of argument,
learned A.G.A. opined that if 1/5th of the
total amount is directed to be deposited by the
revisionists and rest amount is remitted, it
would meet the ends of justice.

19. Considering the overall facts and
circumstances, the order dated 12.5.2022
passed by the trial Court is modified to the
extent that instead of depositing Rs. 50,000/-,
the revisionists shall pay Rs. 20,000/- within
a month from the date of this order.

20. In case of the compliance of this
order as indicated above, proceedings under
Section 446 Cr.P.C. would be terminated by
the Court below by passing a speaking order.
Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the
Court below for compliance and necessary
action.

21. With the aforesaid observations, the
revision stands disposed of.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 174
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Second Appeal No. 1087 of 2015

Sarnam Singh, Lekhpal Chakbandi
 ...Plaintiff/Appellant
Versus
Preetam Kumari & Anr.
 ...Defendants/Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma, Smt. Krishna
Singh, Sri Vijendra Pal Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Sri Mahesh Narain
Singh

Civil Law- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Section 100 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -