SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Wednesday, January 11, 2023

Printed For: Sahil Dhingra, KIIT School of Law
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1979 SCC OnLine All 503 : (1980) 17 ACC 137 : (1980) 17 ACC 171 : 1979 Cri
LJ 1439

Allahabad High Court

(BEFORE P.N. GOEL, J.)

Mahmood Hasan and another … Appellant;

Versus
State … Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 2610 of 1975
Decided on August 1, 1979
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P.N. GOEL, J.:— Mahmood Hasan and Wazir Hasan, appellants were sureties in the
sum of Rs. 3,000/- each for Jumman, who was involved in a case under Sections 305
and 307 I.P.C. The evidence in Sessions Trial No. 127 of 1972 had concluded and the
case was fixed for judgment on 20.2.1973. On that day an application was moved on
behalf of Jumman and Kallu for the exemption of their personal attendance because
they were ill. A medical certificate was enclosed. The III Temporary Civil and Sessions
Judge allowed the application and fixed 22.2.1973 for Judgment. On that day,
Jumman was absent. On 22.2.1973 the surety bonds were forfeited and it was ordered
that the sureties be called upon to produce the accused and to pay up the penalty
amount fixing 23.3.1973. On 23.3.1973 it was found that Jumman was in jail from
15.3.1973. The sureties were not served with a notice. Consequently fresh notice was
ordered to be issued against the sureties fixing 12-4-1973. On 24-3-1973 Wazir Hasan
moved an application. It was ordered to be put up on 12-4-1973. On 12-4-1973, the
accused was present in court and the sureties moved an application that the order
forfeiting the bonds be cancelled. Later on, the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge
passed order that each of the appellant should pay Rs. 500/- within 15 days failing
which they would

Page: 138

be liable to pay the whole penalty. Against this order dated 23.8.1973, the present
appeal has been preferred.

2. The record does not show that before forfeiting the surety bonds the court below
gave any notice to the appellants to show cause as to why the surety bonds be not
forfeited. The rule of natural justice requires that before any adverse order is passed
the person concerned should be given on opportunity of being heard.
3. No such opportunity was given to the appellants. Therefore, the appellants could
not be called upon to pay the sum of Rs. 500/-.
4. For what has been stated above, the appeal is allowed and the order dated
23.8.1973 passed by III Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Meerut calling upon the
appellants to pay Rs. 500/- each set aside. Amount, if any, paid by the appellants
shall be refunded to them.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Wednesday, January 11, 2023
Printed For: Sahil Dhingra, KIIT School of Law
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.