In complete violation of the guidelines set forth in the Section, the trial Court issued the impugned orders in a hasty manner observed by Punjab high court.


TITLE: Balwinder Singh v State of Punjab

Decided On-: February 22, 2023

CRM-M-1037-2017 (O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Aman Chaudhary

INTRODUCTION- The current petition was submitted under Section 482 CrPC to vacate the contested order made pursuant to Section 50 of the NDPS.


The case’s facts state that a non-sikh middle-aged man dressed in mulla fashion was reported to be selling poppy husk in the village of Mavi Sappan by stuffing it onto both sides of an almond-colored “mare.” When the police party arrived, the man sat on the “mare” and forced it to flee through the jeeri crop, but he was caught after a chase, and 55 kg of poppy husk were found on him as well. FIR was consequently filed against him.

After the investigation was finished, a challan was presented, and charges were laid on December 21, 2015.

The “mare” was released on Superdari while the case was still pending by order dated August 22, 2014, issued by the Patiala Special Judge after the petitioner provided surety bonds worth Rs. 5 Lakh and filed documents pertaining to his land.


The petitioner’s knowledgeable attorney would contend that the “mare” passed away on January 3, 2016, and that the Superdar (the defendant in the FIR) informed authorities of this fact by filing an affidavit dated August 9, 2016. His argument is that the trial Court erred by failing to follow the requirements of Section 446 of the CrPC, which stipulates that a show-cause notice must be issued by the Court before the bond is forfeited and the person is ordered to pay the amount of the penalty, which in the current case. Counsel relied on previous judgements

Learned State counsel opposes the petition and claims that while the affidavit was only filed on 09.08.2016, the “mare” had expired on 03.01.2016. The trial Court erred in passing the contested orders.

Forms of law must be followed before a person can be punished, as stated in the aforementioned provision, which mandates that a surety must first give a show cause notice before becoming liable to pay the penalty after the bond is forfeited. Only if the surety fails to provide sufficient justification will the court start the process of recovering the money. This Court determines that no such procedure was followed in the current case, and the trial Court issued the contested orders in a hasty manner that was wholly in violation of the rules set forth in Section 446 of the Criminal Procedure Code and without using due diligence. Lawfully speaking, the same are therefore unsupportable.

Petition allowed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by–  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *