KAPOOR RAJA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition arising out of an order passed by the Executive First Class Magistrate, Quilon, forfeiting the bonds executed by the revision petitioners under S. 117 (3) of the Code of criminal Procedure and calling upon them to execute fresh bonds, has been placed before us on reference by Khalid, J. who found it difficult to agree with the ratio in C. V. Anandan Master & Others v. State of Kerala (1970 klt. 778 ).

(2.) THE revision petitioners along with some others were directed by the Executive First Class Magistrate to execute interim bonds under s 117 (3) Crl. P. C, binding themselves for Rs. 1000/-each with two solvent sureties, each for like sums, to keep peace until the proceedings already initiated against them were concluded. THE bonds were duly executed on 811 1971. On 3-2-1972, the Sub Inspector of Police filed a report before the executive First Class Magistrate stating that the revision petitioners bad, along with certain others, involved themselves in a crime registered under s. 395 IPC. , that he was satisfied that they were likely to commit further breach of the peace disturbing public tranquillity, and that it was necessary to cancel the interim bonds executed by them. THE Sub Inspector of Police was examined on oath in the presence of the revision petitioners. It was deposed by the Sub Inspector that the revision petitioners were Involved in the crime, that he was satisfied that they were frequently involving themselves in crimes causing breach of peace in the locality and that the interim bonds executed by them were to be cancelled. THE Sub Inspector was cross-examined by the counsel for the revision petitioners. THE Executive First Class Magistrate had also perused the case diary of the crime in question. On the ground that there has been a breach of the conditions of the bond, the Executive First Class Magistrate passed the impugned order, the material portion of which reads as follows: "from the evidence placed before me and after hearing the advocate for the above counter-petitioners, I am satisfied that by their above actions which have not been denied by them or rebutted in evidence before me, the above counter-petitioners have breached the conditions of the bonds to keep the peace executed by them and their sureties as laid down under s. 121 Cr. p. C. Accordingly; I; Shri. U. Jayanarayanan; Executive First class Magistrate; Quilon hereby order under S. 514 (1) Cr. P. C. that the bonds executed by the above counter petitioners and their sureties stand forfeited to government and the counter petitioners are hereby asked to pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- each being penalty for having breached the conditions of the bond. THE counter petitioners are also hereby asked to execute fresh bonds to keep peace for Rs, 1000/- each with two solvent sureties for like amounts as per powers vested in me under S. 514 (A) Cr. P. C. THEy are also informed that if the fresh bonds with the sureties are not executed before 25 21972 further action for default under the original orders dated 23 7 70 and 9101971 be proceeded with. "

(3.) WE may at once note the distinction between a bond for appearance before a court on the one hand and a bond for keeping the peace or for good behaviour on the other. In the case of a bond for appearance before a court, the cause for forfeiture thereof arises immediately on the failure on the part of the person bound by the bond to appear in court at the appointed time or on the appointed day, as no further proof regarding the breach of the conditions is called for. In the case of a bond for keeping the peace or for good behaviour, the position is different for obvious reasons; proof becomes necessary for the Magistrate to satisfy himself that there has been breach of the conditions of the bond before an order forfeiting the bond could be passed.