EMPEROR Vs. BALLABHDAS MOTIRAM GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the bond given by the accused for his appearance in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate has been forfeited by an order of the Eighth Presidency Magistrate, to whose Court the case had been transferred. By the bond the accused binds himself to attend in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate on February 29 next to answer to the charge and to continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the Court. He did attend on February 29, and he continued to attend the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate until April 20, when the case was transferred to the Court of the 8th Presidency Magistrate, and thereafter he continued to appear before the 8th Presidency Magistrate until December 5, when he made default.

(2.) THE first question is whether the accused has broken the condition of the bond, and I am clearly of opinion that he has not. All that he has undertaken to do is to attend the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, and to continue so to attend, that is to attend the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, until otherwise directed by the Court. THE Court may direct him to cease attendance in the Chief Presidency Magistrate's Court, but it cannot direct him to attend some other Court which he has not undertaken to attend. THErefore, on the construction of the bond, in my opinion, he has not committed a breach.

(3.) ON the bond, as it stands, I am of opinion that there has been no breach. The application is allowed, and the order of the Presidency Magistrate, 8th: Court, set aside.