JOTI PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by Joti Prasad and Girdhari Lal, who had, according to their own showing,

(2.) On 29-12-1949, the two sureties made an application to the Sessions Judge objecting to the forfeiture of the bonds executed by them. They alleged that, on 25-7-1949, Khushal Singh was present in Court; that the clerk of the counsel, appearing for Khushal Singh, had stated that Khushal Singh had been acquitted; and that on account of the information given by the clerk of the counsel, they had lost control over the movements of Khushal Singh. This plea, raised on behalf of the applicants, was not accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. He, however, substantially reduced the amount payable under the surety bonds.

(3.) In this revision, two points have been urged on behalf of the applicants. In the first place, it has been contended that it was not necessary for the applicants, the sureties, to produce Khushal Singh in Court on 6-8-1949, as it was the date fixed for the delivery of judgment. This argument is based on the terms of the bond executed by the applicants, in which it was stated that they would be liable to produce Khushal Singh in the Court of Session to answer the charge levelled against him. The terms of the bond are wide enough to include an undertaking to produce Khushal Singh on all the hearings on which the trial of Khushal Singh was to take place. The trial will be deemed to have been concluded on the date on which the judgment was pronounced. Consequently there can be no doubt that under the bond executed by the applicants they were responsible for the production of Khushal Singh even on the date or dates fixed for the delivery of judgment. I, therefore, see no force in this contention.