M S RANGARATHNAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision case filed against the order made by the Third Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, in M. P. No. 26 of 1955.

(2.) THE facts are : In C. C. No. 5290 of 1953 one Baghwandass Bansal and two others were charged under Sections 420 and 34, I. P. C. This Bhagwandass was produced before the third Presidency Magistrate to take his trial. He was directed to be released, on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 1,000, with one surety for a like sum. One M. S. Rangarathnam, the petitioner before us, offered himself as a surety and tendered Rs. 1000 in cash as surety amount. It was accepted by the magistrate and the bond executed was to the effect that this Rangarathnam bound himself as surety for the above named Bhagwandass to attend before the Third Presidency Magistrate at Saidapet at 11 a. m. on 19-3-1954 to answer to the charge on which he has been arrested and shall continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the court and in case of his making default, to forfeit to the State the sum of Rs. 1,000. This case was subsequently transferred by the order of the Supreme Court to be tried by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. The accused did not appear in Calcutta and notice issued for his presence by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, was returned unserved. Therefore, that Chief Presidency Magistrate addressed the Third Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, calling upon him to cause the production of the accused or take action against the surety. Therefore, notice was issued under Section 514 Cri. P. C. and the surety appeared arid contended that by reason of the transfer he was not bound to produce the accused and the bond should not be forfeited. He took time, however to produce the accused who was stated to be at Hatras, Aligarh, but jailed to do so. Therefore, the Third Presidency Magistrate proceeded with his proceedings under Section 514 Cri. P. C. and forfeited the bond. Hence this ' revision case.

(3.) THE provisions of Section 514 Cri. P. C. apply to all bonds whether executed by principals, sureties or witnesses for appearance in court. 'ananthacharri v. Ananthacharri ILR 2 Mad 163 (A),' The provisions of this section indicate that two steps are to be taken : first, it must be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the bond has been forfeited, whereupon the court is to record the grounds of such proof; secondly, the court on being satisfied as aforesaid, may call upon the person bound by such bond to pay the penalty therefor, or to show cause why it should not be paid. Manmohan v. Emperor AIR 1928 Cal 261 (B ). A surety bond in criminal cases must be strictly construed and a surety cannot be required to pay the amount of his bond as the result of an opinion held by a court, as to what was in his mind when he signed it, He can be required to forfeit the amount only if the terms expressed in the bond are broken. Nga Potin v. Emperor' 33 Cri LJ 68 : AIR 1922 Upp Bur 8 (C); Vithaldas V. Emperor AIR 1932 Bom 290 (D), Maung Nge v. Emperor 26 Cri. LJ 389 : AIR 1925 Rang 153 (E ).