PUTTU LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made to a Bench by a single Judge of this Court.

(2.) THE facts of the revision are that one Nan-koo was prosecuted under Section 379,1. P. C. in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kaimganj, district Far-rukhabad. He was released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs. 500/- and furnishing two sureties, of the like amount. Puttu Lal and Jagannath, who are the applicants executed a joint surety bond on 17-12-1952 in which they undertook to produce the accused in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kaimganj during the hearing of the case or in the court of the Sessions Judge. The case was subsequently transferred from the court of the Judicial Magistrate, sadar. After the transfer of the case, the accused appeared at several hearings in the court of the Judicial magistrate, Sadar but on 26-5-1953, which was one of the dates fixed, he did not appear and the surety bond was forfeited Notice was issued to the sureties to show cause why the amount of the surety bond should not be realised from them. Puttu Lal appeared in lesponse to the notice and contended that the accused had fallen ill was, therefore, unable to appear on the date fixed. As no evidence was produced on behalf of Puttu Lal and Jagannath in order to prove that the accused was ill on 26-5-1953, this point was found by the Magistrate against them. The accused was however, subsequently arrested on 10-6-1953 and was sent to jail. The Magistrate, ordered that the amount of the surety bond be realised from the sureties. Against this order, an appeal was filed to the Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad who allowed the appeal to the extent that the amount was reduced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 250/ -. In other respects he main tained the order passed by the Magistrate. In the revision it was contended that as under the terms of the bond the sureties undertook to produce the accused before the Judicial Magistrate, Kaimganj, the Judicial Magistrate, farrukhabad had no power to order forfeiture and in any case the failure of the accused to appear before the Judicial Magistrate, Farruknabad did not amount to any breach of the terms of the bond and the bond cannot be forfeited and the applicants cannot be asked to pay the amount of the bond. The learned Single Judge, before whom the matter came up lor hearing in revision, observed that there appeared to be some conflict between several decisions of this Court and consequently he referred the matter to a Bench for decision.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the point raised in this case, it is necessary to refer to the terms of the bond which is as follows: