BUNYAD HUSAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This decision will dispose of Cr. Rev. Nos. 142 and 219 of 1954. The same points arise in both these cases. The two applicants in these two revisions are Bunyad Husain and Iqbal Husain, who were sureties for Debidin and Ram Samajh, Debidih, and Ram Samajh were sent up by police station Safdarganj, district Barabanki, for trial Under Section 457, IPC. They were accused in the same case, which was first sent up to the court of the Judicial Officer, Fatehpur on 8-5-1951. Before the trial of the case started both Debidin and Ram Samajh applied for bail in the court of the Judicial Officer, Nawabganj. Both the accused persons were released on bail on 24-4-1951. They executed personal bonds and the two applicants were their sureties.

(2.) The personal bonds and the bonds filled by the sureties were on two sides of the same paper. On top of this paper the Court of the Judicial Officer Nawabganj was mentioned. The two applicants gave the undertaking that they will produce the accused persons in the said court or in the court of Sessions, if required. In case of a breach they undertook to pay Rs 500 each. Two bonds were executed, one for Ram Samajh and the other for Debidin, The bond for Debidin was in favour of Bharat Sarkar; while the bond for Ram Samajh was in favour of His Majesty the King Emperor. It appears that an old form was used and the words 'Bharat Sarkar' were not substituted for His Majesty the King-Emperor in the second bond, When the case came up for trial the two accused per sons Debidin and Ram Samajh appeared in the court of the Judicial Officer, Fatehpur, Subsequently this case was transferred under tne order of the District Magistrate, Barabanki, to the court of the Judicial Officer, Nawabganj, on 20-7-1951, After some hearings the two accused persons absconded and the applicants could not produce them before the Judicial Officer, Nawabganj. Their trial could not, therefore, proceed. It is not quite clear how this case came before the Judicial Officer, Ram Sanehi Ghat, who issued notice against the applicants, why their surety bonds be not forfeited. The applicants appeared before the Judicial Officer, Ram Sanehi Ghat and on 28-1-1954 this Court passed an order forfeiting the entire amount of the surety bonds Under Section 514(1), CrPC, The applicants went up in appeal before the Sessions judge, Barabanki Under Section, 515, Code of Criminal Procedure but their appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the Judicial Officer, Ram Sanehi Ghat, was maintained. They have now come up in revision before this Court.

(3.) Two contentions have been advanced by the counsel for the applicants in this case, Firstly, it is contended that a bond executed in favour of His Majesty the King-Emperor is no longer enforceable and could not be forfeited, as it was not in favour of Government as provided in Form No. 42 of Schedule v. of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950. This amending order was issued on 26 1-1950. As the bonds in this case were executed on 24-4-1951, i,e. after the commencement of the new Constitution and the coming into force of the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, it could not be enforced as His Majesty the King-Emperor had ceased to exist. Secondly, it was contended that the Judicia-Officer, Ram Sanehi Ghat had no Jurisdiction to forfeit these bonds, as it was against the rule of law laid down in S. 514 of the CrPC. In my opinion both these contentions are sound and they must be accepted.