ABEYESUNDERE, J.—Don Chariot v. The Queen
1966Present: Abeyesundere, J., and Alles, J.
IS.DON CHARLES, Appellant, and THE QUEEN, Respondent
S.C. 27166—D.C. Colombo (Criminal), N2221/47114IB
Bail bond—Order of forfeiture made against surely—Circumstances when it may beset aside.
An order of forfeiture of Rs. 1,000 in respect of the bail bond furnished by theaccused was made againBt the surety-appellant because of the failure of theaccused to be present in the District Court on the due date. The surety satisfiedthe Supreme Court in appeal that the accused was ill on the date on which hewas required to be present.
Held, that the order of forfeiture should be set aside.
PPEAL from an order of the District Court, Colombo.
R.Manikkavasagar, for the Surety-Appellant.
N.TittaweUa, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
June 20, 1966. Abeyesundere, J.—
This is an appeal by a surety from an order made by the AdditionalDistrict Judge of Colombo forfeiting Rs. 1,000 of the bail bond furnishedby the accused in the District Court of Colombo in case No. N /2221 /47114/
The forfeiture has been made because of the failure of the accusedto be present in the District Court after the conclusion of the proceedings –
ABEYESUNDERE, J.—Don Charles v. The Queen
in the Supreme Court on an appeal made to that Court unsuccessfullyby the accused. When the surety was asked by the learned AdditionalDistrict Judge whether he had cause to show why the bond should not beforfeited, he stated that he had no cause to show. It was submitted onhis behalf, by Counsel appearing for him in the appeal before us, that thesurety was unable to show cause as he did not know the reason why theaccused failed to appear in the District Court. It was further submittedon behalf of the surety that thereafter the surety had ascertained thatthe failure of the accused to appear in the District Court was due to illness.The surety has produced along with his appeal a medical certificate dated2nd July, 1965, from Dr. D. S. de Simon to the effect that P. Sivasubra-maniam is suffering from Neural Leprosy. Crown Counsel who appearedfor the respondent stated that he was not in a position to contradictthe fact that the accused was ill on the date on which he was required tobe present in the District Court.
For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that it would be unjust toforfeit any sum and therefore we set aside the order of forfeiture ofRs. 1,000 made against the surety-appellant by the Additional DistrictJudge.
Alles, J.—I agree.
E. DON CHARLES, Appellant, and THE QUEEN, Respondent