SHAFIQ AHMAD AND ABDUL RAZZAQ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have persued the order of the learned Sessions. Judge dismissing the appeal which was filed by the applicants in this revision before me. They had stood surety in the sum of Rs. 300/- each on July 4, 1949 for the appearance of a person called Tufail Ahmad. This man was being prosecuted Under Section 109, Code of Criminal Procedure Tufail Ahmed did not appear on the date fixed and the personal bond executed by him was declared to have been forfeited on the 31st December 1949. Thereafter the sureties were served with a notice to show cause why the bonds executed by them should not be forfeited. An application was made on their behalf for time to produce the accused. Time was granted by the court but they were unable to trace his whereabout. In these circumstances the learned Magistrate declared their bonds to have been forfeited and directed each of them to pay Rs. 340/-. The position is that neither of the applicants has been able to give sufficient reason for his inability to produce the man for whom they stood surety. Their explanation is that the man had probably gone out of Allahabad in search of employment and that is was in these circumstances, not possible for them to produce him without further enquiries. In my opinion, the learned Judge was correct in his view that the learned Magistrate had give the sureties sufficient time to make a search for the accused person.

(2.) It has been contended, before me that the proper procedure for the learned Magistrate to follow Under Section 514 Code of Criminal Procedure was first to declare the bonds forfeited and thereafter to issue, notice to the sureties to pay the penalty thereof on to show cause why it should not be paid. It is contended that the procedure adopted, in this case was irregular inasmuch as notice was issued to the applicants before the bond had been declared to be forfeited. Assuming that there is any force in this argument, the irregularity is of a character which would be curable Under Section 537, Code of Criminal Procedure. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is in no way unjust.

(3.) For the reasons indicated above, there is no force in this application. It is accordingly, dismissed.