LAKHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision arises out of the following circumstances. Natha accused was sent up for trial Under Section 409, IPC. The learned Magistrate 1st class, Budaun, by his order dated 1st March 1967, committed the accused to the court of Sessions and in the court of Sessions 8 -4 -1967 was fixed as the date of hearing. On that date Natha accused was absent. Natha, it may be stated, was on bail and Lakhan Singh and Khamani, the present Applicants in this revision, stood surety for, him and executed a surety bond. Notice issued to the two sureties for producing the accused on 8 -4 -1967 were served upon them but inspite of that the accused was not produced. The learned 1st Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge on 8 -4 -1967 ordered that the surety bonds furnished by Lakhan Singh and Khamani be forfeited and issued notices to them to show cause why the amount of their respective bonds should not be realised from them. By his order dated 13 -6 -1967 the learned 1st Temporary Sessions Judge considered how much amount the sureties should be ordered to pay. He took into consideration that the accused appeared subsequently and was tried and was acquitted by the Sessions court. Under those circumstances the learned 1st Temporary Sessions Judge ordered both the Sureties to pay Rs. 300/ - each instead of Rs. 1200/ - each for which they had executed the surety bond. The learned Judge did not order forfeiture of the personal bond of the accused as he was I not served for 8 -4 -1967. It is against this order that the present application in revision has been filed.

(2.) I have heard Sri S.S. Alim, Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants and Begam Rahman, appearing for the State. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants made only one submission and that was that the surety bonds were executed by the Applicants before the Judicial Officer, Dataganj, district Budaun and as the Ist Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge was neither the court by which the bond was taken nor the Presidency Magistrate nor Magistrate of the 1st class the surety bonds could not be forfeited. Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the procedure for forfeiture of bonds. Sub -section (1) of Section 514 is relevant in connection with the present revision. That sub -section reads as follows:

(3.) IN the instant case the surety bonds are on record and they show that the sureties undertook to produce the accused on every date of hearing before the, Judicial Officer, Dataganj or the court to which the case may be transferred or before a court of sessions. It was held in Bunyad Husain v. State, 1958 AWR 858: