SOURINDRA LAL DAS Vs. LATIKA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application relates to a proceeding in case No. C/131 of 1974 in the Court of. the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta.

(2.) Mr. Moitra the learned Advocate appearing in support of the motion challenged at first the order dated January 19, 1974 on the ground or non compliance of the provision of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Obviously he did so on the basis of the judgment in the case of Bramhananda Goel reported in 1974 Cri LJ 1079 (Cal). Since then the decision has been set aside by the Special Bench in the case of Tara Dutta v. State, reported in 79 Cal WN 996 : AIR 1975 SC 450, Mr. Moitra further tried to argue that the recording of the statement was also not in order as he thought that the substance of the examination has not been reduced to writing in terms of the said section. We are unable to accept the validity of his submission. In this connection we may refer to the case of Queen Empress v. Murphy, reported in (1887) ILR 9 All 666. In our view there has been sufficient compliance with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Mr. Moitra next argued that the order D/- 11-2-1974 by which the learned Presidency Magistrate asked the accused to furnish cash bail was wrong. We find substance in this argument. In our view there is no provision for asking the accused to furnish cash bail. A Division Bench decision of this Court (Abdul Gani v. Emperor) 14 Rule 18 221 : (1947)48 Cri LJ 773 (Cal) held that the order for demanding cash security for bail is illegal. We may also refer to another decision of the Patna High Court (Rajballam Singh v. Emperor) reported in AIR 1948 Pat 375 in this connection. There is of course nothing to prevent the court from accepting the cash security for such amount it might] think fit if such amount is offered by the accused. In this view of the matter we set aside the portion of the order dated February 11, 1974 which requires the accused to furnish cash bail. The learned Magistrate will pass the necessary order with regard to bail in accordance with law. No other order in the proceeding calls for interference. As the said order is illegal we deem it necessary to exercise our inherent power to set aside the same.