ANWAR AHMAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave involves a short point of law relating to the legal enforceability of a personal bond executed by the appellant before the police for the production of the car belonging to him, which was alleged to have been stolen. The facts leading to the appeal fall within a very narrow compass.

(2.) The appellant appears to have bought a car No. USD 5317 from the dealers on the basis of a hire purchase agreement. He filed a report before the police alleging that Ran Singh and others had practised a fraud on him and had taken away his car and had not returned the same. On 3-12-1969, the police during the course of investigation recovered the car and handed it over to the appellant on supardnama on his executing a personal bond whereby the appellant undertook to produce the car in the court whenever necessary, and in the case of failure to do so, he bound himself to pay a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. By the time the matter came to the Court, two years had elapsed and on 14-9-1971, the Munsiff Magistrate, Meerut, called upon the appellant to produce the car, and as he was unable to do so, a notice was issued under Sec. 514 of Cr. P. C. for for-feiture of the bond. After hearing the appellant, the Magistrate ordered the forfeiture of the bond and directed the appellant to pay a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. The appellant went up in appeal to the learned Sessions Judge against the Magistrate's order. But the appeal was dismissed. The appellant met the same fate in revision which was preferred to the High Court. Hence, this appeal before us.

(3.) The short point taken by learned counsel for the appellant is that even accepting the prosecution case as it stands, the bond is not legally enforceable under the Criminal P.C., because it was not executed before a police officer. It is not disputed by counsel for the parties that as the occurrence took place long before the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the present case will be covered by the Old Criminal P.C., 1898. The Criminal P.C., contains separate provisions for the custody of property (1) during the course of investigation, (2) during the course of enquiry and trial, and (3) after the accused is convicted or acquitted. In the instant case, we are concerned, however, with the case while it was under investigation. Sec. 523 of the Code runs thus:-