PRITAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question the arises in this case is whether the bond executed by a surety accused under section 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure even when no bond has been executed by the accused under thal section is a valid band which can be forieited under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Th The facts of the case are that one Banwan Lal who is a milk vendor was proceeded with under the Prevention ol Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He was produced before Shri C.D. Sharnia Magistrate 1st Class Delhi, who by his order dated 6th September, l968, directed Banwari Lal to furn sh a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000.00 with one surety in the like amount for appearing in the court whenever required. In pursuance of this the petitioner, Priiam Stngb. executed a surety bond in the amount of Rs, 2,000.00 on l2th September, 1968, undertaking that Banwari Lal would be appearing in the court Irom time to time as may be required until the close oi the trial and if the accused defaults then the petitioner will be liable to forfeit a sum of Rs 2,000 -, Banwari Lal committed a default for appearing in the court on September 19, 1968 and the subsequent hearing The court forfeited the amount of surety bond and issued notice to the petitioner in this behalf. There, after the trial court by its order dated 10th March, 1969, came to the , conclusion that the petitioner had failed to show any cause and it therefore, directed the petitioner to pay the penalty of Rs.1/000.00. Appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate Delhi on 26th July, 1869. There after the petitioner filed a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge The poiiit urged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was that the bend had not been executed by Banwari lal and, therefore, even though surety bond was duly executed by the petitioner the same was invalid and could not be enforced against him. The Additional Sessions Judge following certain authorities recommended to this court that as the bond bad not been executed by Banwarial, the petitioner could not be held liable on hs bend also and therefore, recommended that the order by the learned Additional District Magistrate. Delhi, dated '26th July, 1969 be set aside, and the notice issued by the trial court requiring the petitioner to pay the penalty be discharged.

(3.) Th This matter came up before me sitting singly. I found that there was a confict of views amongst the various High Courts considering that the matter was of general importance and was likely to arise in future, I felt that this case should be decided by a larger bench. I therefore, directed that the case be referred to a larger bench. This is how the said matter has now been placed before us.