LAWS(ALL)-1997-9-143

RAM NANDAN Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On September 02, 1997
RAM NANDAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A. G. A.

(2.) THE revisionists, Ram Nandan and Ram Chandra stood sureties in a criminal case, State v. Rajesh and others under Sec tions 498-Aand 304-B, I. P. C. and under Sec tions 3/4 Dowery Prohibition Act, P. S. Nandganj, district Ghazipur, for accused Rajesh. Rajesh did not appear on the date fixed. THErefore, notices were issued to the sureties. In the mean-time father of accused Rajesh moved an application before the Magistrate concerned apprehending mur der of accused Rajesh and praying for direc tion to the police to conduct enquiry. Another application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. was moved by father of. j -. cused Rajesh on which learned C. J. M. passed an order directing the police concerned to register and investigate the case. THE sureties sought time for production of the accused but ultimately they did not produce the accused. THErefore, by an order dated 5-11-96 the learned Magistrate forfeited the surety bonds and directed the sureties (the revisionists) to deposit the amount of the bond within fifteen days failing which, he directed that the recovery proceedings may be initiated against them.

(3.) EVEN if the bonds were forfeited, the learned Magistrate was bound to follow the procedure provided under Section 446 (1) and (2), Cr. P. C. He was required to issue notice to the sureties to deposit the amount of penalty or show cause why amount of penalty may not be recovered from them. In case the sureties furnished any explanation, the same must be disposed of by the learned Magistrate and it is only after the disposal of the cause that the learned Magistrate could have initiated the recovery proceedings. Section 446 (1), Cr. P. C. provides that "where a bond under this Code is for ap pearance. . . . . . . that the bond has been for feited. . . . . . the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid. "