RAM ASREY TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Ram Asrey Tripathi is a practising lawyer in Rae Bareli. One Ausan was standing trial for an offence under section 396 IPC in State v. Ausan, Sessions Trial No. 158 of 1980, in the Court of Ilnd Addl. Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli. In order to obtain his bail, surety bounds of Ausan's father, Bhola, and another person, purporting to be his maternal uncle, Mathura, were filed. THE appellant Ram Asrey Tripathi appended the following endorsement of identification of Mathura on the surety bond on 4-10-1979;

(2.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge obtained sample thumb impressions of Mathura and forwarded the same to the Finger Print Expert of UP CID. THE report of the Expert was that the disputed thumb impression on the surety bond did not tally with that of Mathura. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge then recorded the deposition of Mathura PW 1, Bhola PW 2 and Finger Print Expert Moti Lal CW 1; all the witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the appellant. No witness was examined by the appellant himself.

(3.) THE facts, stated above, have not been disputed by learned counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing of the appeal. THE main point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the acceptance of the bond of Mathura was caused not by the identification made by the appellant, but on account of the Tehsil's report. It may be mentioned that after the surety bonds had been filed on 4-10-1979, the CJM directed their verification from Tehsil. On 12-10-1979 a report was made by the Tehsil stating that Mathura was solvent for Rs. 5,000/-. It is clear enough that this report only confirmed the solvency of Mathura and not his identity. On 29-10-1979 the CJM passed the following order on the surety bonds :- "Provisionally accepted on the basis of affidavit. Documents be sent back by proper channel for verification," It is clear enough that this order of provisional acceptance of the sureity bond rested upon the affidavits which had been filed by Bhola and Mathura on which identification of Mathura had been made by the appellant. It cannot, therefore, be said that the surety bond of Mathura had not been accepted on the basis of his identification by the appellant.