LAWS(ALL)-1957-8-39

RAMESHWAR DAYAL Vs. STATE

Decided On August 01, 1957
RAMESHWAR DAYAL Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by one Rameshwar Dayal against an order of forfeiture of bond under Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure, passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate of Faridpur in the district of Bareilly.

(2.) IT appears that a number of persons, including one Umar, were being tried for an offence under Section 60, Excise Act, in the court of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate of Baheri in the said district, and that the applicant stood surety for Umar's appearance in that court and executed a bond in the sum of Rs. 250 as penalty for Umar's non -appearance. On Umar -failing to make his appearance, the Sub -Divisional Magistrate of Baheri called upon the applicant to show cause why the penalty be not paid. The applicant showed cause but the same was not accepted by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate of Faridpur, who passed the following order on 23 -1 -1954.

(3.) THE first clause relates to initiation of proceedings and to the passing of the order of payment of penalty by the person bound by the bond or of his being required to show cause why it should not be paid, and the second to the court proceeding to recover the penalty in case of sufficient cause not being shown and the penalty not being paid. It will be noticed that although the first clause speaks generally of the satisfaction of three kinds of Courts in the matters of initiation of proceedings and the passing of order of payment of penalty, viz. the Court by which a bond under the Code has been taken, the Court of a Presidency Magistrate and a Magistrate of the First class, it speaks of the satisfaction of only one of the said courts in the specific case of a bond for appearance before a Court, namely, the Court before which appearance under the bond is to be made. It follows necessarily that in this specific case "the court" taking proceedings under the second clause to recover the penalty and under the subsequent clauses to pass orders of attachment, imprisonment and remission is the same -the Court, that is, before which appearance under the bond is to be made.