GUR DAYAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An important question of law about the jurisdiction of the Court of Session to reduce the amount of the bond and the number of sureties asked for under section 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been raised by the petitioners.

(2.) It is not necessary to give the facts in detail since these are not relevant to decide the question. Suffice it to say that the petitioners were proceeded against under section 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate after giving them the requisite notice under section 111 of the Code directed each one of them to execute a bond for Rs. 5,000 with two sureties in the like amount during the pendency of the proceedings. They failed to produce the sureties and were consequently detained in custody. The petitioners approached the Court of Session for reducing the amount of the bond and the number of .sureties under section 123(2) of the Code. Mr. S. R. Goel, Additional Sessions Judge, held that he has no jurisdiction to reduce the amount of the bond and the number of sureties.

(3.) Mr. M. N. Madan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Court of Session has the jurisdiction under section 123(2) of the Code and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was in error in holding otherwise. He contends that the detention of the petitioners in custody on their failure to furnish the sureties demanded under section 116(3) amounts to their being imprisoned for failing to give security in terms of section 123(2).