ABDUL REHEMAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a case Under Sections 379 and 447 IPC Applicant Abdul Rahman was an accused. On 3-2-1966 the case was taken up in his presence and he executed a bond for Rs. 600/- and Applicants Nos. 2 and 3 stood surety for him in the like amount for producing him in court on the dates fixed in future. In their presence 15-2-1966 was fixed as the next date in the case. On that date Abdul Rahman was found absent and the trial Magistrate ordered the personal bond and the two surety bonds to be forfeited and the notice to be issued to the Applicants to show cause as to why they should not be made to pay the amount of the same. Applicants showed cause to the effect that as Abdul Rahman had gone to district Bareilly and had missed the train he could not come in time to attend the court. The cause shown by them did not appeal to the trial Magistrate and he confirmed his order on 10-3-1966. It appears that the Applicants did not file any appeal against the order but came up in revision before the Sessions Judge who rejected it and upheld the order of the Magistrate. Hence this revision.

(2.) An order Under Section 514 when passed by a Magistrate is appealable to the District Magistrate or the Sessions Judge Under Section 515 of the Code. It is also provided in Section 515 that if not so appealed it may be revised by them.

(3.) Sri B.C. Saksena, Learned Counsel for the Applicants, contends that under this section the Sessions Judge ought to have revised the order.