ROSHAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two connected revisions filed by two persons who had stood surety for one Lalta who had been convicted and sentenced Under Section 379 I. P. C. by a Magistrate of the 1st Class. He was convicted oh the 31-5-1955 and on the same day an appeal was filed in the Court of Session. An application was then moved for bail. On the 1-6-1955 the learned Sessions Judge passed an order that the accused be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1000/- and two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the magistrate concerned. These two applicants filed surety bonds and on the execution of those bonds the accused was released on bail. After that Lalta appeared on the 19-7-1955 before the appellate court but thereafter he never appeared before the court of Session. According to the judgment of the Sessions Judge the notices were given to the sureties to produce Lalta and they took time to produce him but they failed. Ultimately the appeal was heard on the 24-H-1955 in the absence of the appellant and was dismissed. Thereafter the sureties were required to show cause why penalty provided in their bail bonds be not imposed and after hearing tine applicants the court ordered that the penalty provided in the surety bonds be enforced against the sureties and proceedings be taken to recover it from each of the sureties. Gokaran and Roshan lal. Against that order both the applicants have come to this Court and have raised several points of law.

(2.) Firstly, it has been contended that proper proceedings as required Under Section 514 Cr. P. C. have not been taken. It was said that there was no order of forfeiture of the bonds nor a proper notice has been served upon the applicants to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid. Secondly, It was urged that the terms of the surety bonds never comtemplated the production of the accused before the appellate court and the surety bonds must be enforced strictly according to the terms of the bonds. It is in the nature of a contract and nobody can go out of the contract and enforce something which is not in the bond but it may be in contemplation of the parties. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. M. Homi, (S) AIR 1955 SC 478 (A) wherein it was held that:

(3.) Reliance was also placed on Emperor v. Chintaram, AIR 1936 Nag 243 (B), Judgment of Mr. Justice Vivian Bose, wherein his Lordship held that: