PARSHOTTAM SOMA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter arises upon forfeiture of surety bonds executed by the petitioners in order to get certain persons arrested in connection with an offence punishable under sec. 104(1) of the Customs Act released on bail. For the purpose of the question arising for determination in this petition a few facts which are not in dispute may be stated.

(2.) 13 persons came to be arrested and were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bulsar for violation of the provisions of the Customs Act 1962 An application for bail was submitted on behalf of accused persons and the learned Magistrate ordered release of each of them on bail on his executing a bond for the sum of Rs. 5000/with a surety in the like amount in the case of each. Before this bond could be executed the Inspector of Customs went in revision to the Sessions Court Bulsar at Navsari against the order releasing these 6 aforesaid persons on bail. That application was Criminal Application No. 20 of 1969. The application challenged the order granting bail both on law and facts and stated that the order was bad. The following order was passed on that application as can be seen from the certified copy thereof produced by Mr. Shethna for the petitioners which has been kept on record. That order came to be passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 14-10-1969 :-

(3.) The petitioners have contested their liability to pay the amount as ordered by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge increasing the amount of bail from Rs. 5000/to Rs. 7000/was beyond the powers of the learned Sessions Judge and was illegal and therefore the surety bonds executed in pursuance of such an illegal order have no validity in the eyes of law and could not be enforced. This was the only contention raised before this court on behalf of the petitioners and therefore we will have to find out whether the order of the learned Sessions Judge increasing the amount of bail as reproduced earlier was an order which he was authorised to pass under any of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code or an order beyond his powers. The learned advocate for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government pleader were heard at length on this point. As the question involved interpretation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and had assumed some importance at my request two learned advocates Mr. D.C. Trivedi and Mr. D. K. Shah submitted their arguments. This court is beholden to them for the assistance they readily gave on the question of interpretation of certain provisions of the Code.