KUPPURAJU Vs. ASST PUBLIC PROSECUTOR GRADE 1

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point involved in the revision proceeding is a very short one and the relevant facts are not in dispute. There was originally a proceeding Initiated by the Superintendent of Central Excise Customs Circle, Nagapattinam, in October 1961, for a remand of the concerned accused for a period of 15 days, pending further investigation and the fitting of a charge-sheet. We are not now occupied with the particulars of the offences alleged under 1966cri. L J. /31. several provisions of the Sea Customs Act, for it seems to be clear that so far no charge sheet his been filed and there has been no trial or preliminary enquiry following such a charge sheet.

(2.) THE accused was originally remanded to judicial custody for 15 days and on 28-10-1981, Learned Counsel for the accused moved for bail under Section 496 Crl. P. C. Bail was granted and the present two revision petitioners stood as sureties for the accused and executed a surety bond; shortly the point is whether the security can be forfeited as the terms of the bond are claimed to have been infringed. It is also not in dispute that subsequent to the grant of bail the concerned accused one Selvaraj, appeared before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nagapatttnam, on various dates, the last of which was on 7-5- 1962 Later, he failed to appear. Action under Section 514 Crl. P. C. was initiated stomata by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, against the present revision petitioners. Curiously enough there was no order, as a consequence of these proceedings, forfeiting the security under the bond. On the contrary the learned Magistrate held that there was really no obligation on the respondents (revision petitioners) to produce Selvarai after 6-1-1962 and the proceedings were dropped.

(3.) IT appears that the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade I, Nagapattinam, moved the District Magistrate (Judicial) for revision of the proceedings, because, in his view, the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate was not sustainable. The learned District Magistrate went into the tact?s and thought that the order was not sustainable and directed the forfeiture of the bond so that the respondents (revision petitioners) became each liable to pay a sum of: Rs. 5000, which sum was offered by them as security and accepted by the court. It is against this order that the present revision proceeding has been filed.