List revised.
None responds for the revisionists.
Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate is present.
Heard Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the material on record.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 08.05.2000 passed by the court of Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Criminal Appeal No.50 of 1999 (Krishna Kumar Verma and another Vs. State of U.P. which was preferred against the order dated 16.09.1999 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 113 of 1999 by the court of First Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division/ Additional C.J.M., Sitapur under Section 446 Cr.P.C. by means of which the learned Magistrate had levied an amount of surety bonds.
The facts giving rise to this revision in brief are that Krishna Kumar Verma and Sohan Lal both the revisionists stood sureties for accused Sri Ram Verma, Lekhpal in Case Crime No.51 of 1986, Under Sections 420, 2 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Reusa, District Sitapur. The aforesaid accused absented themselves on 09.08.1999. Therefore their bail bonds were forfeited and show cause notices were issued to the sureties. Both the revisionists moved a joint application in response to the show cause notice explaining the reason for the absence of the accused. After considering the material on record the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that no good reason could be shown by the sureties and therefore by means of order dated 16.09.1999 it was directed that both the sureties would deposit an amount of Rs.5000/- within 15 days, failing which the amount was to be realized by means of warrant.
The appeal preferred against this order also failed. I have carefully gone through both the concurrent judgments. I do not find any embellishment on factual or legal matrix. There is neither any illegality nor any irregularity in both the orders. There is also no allegation of either exceeding the jurisdiction or not exercising the jurisdiction vested in the courts below. Therefore there is no occasion to revise any of the concurrent orders.
The revision is therefore dismissed.
Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the all concerned through Registrar of this Court to ensure necessary compliance. 05.01.2010 PAL/Crl. Rev. No.209 of 2000