BALRAJ S KAPOOR Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by a surety and it raises a question which arises not infrequently for decision and is, therefore, of some importance.

(2.) ONE Shivraj S. Kapoor was arrested at about 9-30 p. m. on 27-9-1951, in connection with an offence under the Bombay Prohibition Act 1849. I am told the offence was one under Section 65 (a) of the Act. Upon the applicant standing a surety for the accused for his appearance in the Court of law, Shivraj S. Kapoor was granted bail and was released. The bond executed by the applicant was lor a sum of Rs. 20,000. The obligation undertaken by the surety was to the effect that the accused would appear in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate or in the Court of any other Magistrate to which the case might be transferred on 28-9-1051, or on such other days that he might he thereafter required to attend to answer further to the charge pending against him until the case was finally disposed of by the Presidency Magistrate trying the case. On 8-2-1952, a charge-sheet was presented by the police against the accused before the 16th Court and the case was transferred to the 13th Court on 24-10-1952. On February 10, 1953, the accused Shivraj S. Kapoor was convicted by the 19th Court in another case which was pending against him in that Court, and he was sent to jail custody to carry out the sentence of imprisonment which had been imposed upon him. On 20-3-1853, the accused Shivraj S. Kapoor preferred an appeal from his conviction and sentence and this Court enlarged the accused Shivraj S. Kapoor on bail. After he was enlarged on bail, the accused Shivraj S. Kapoor absconded and this was at a time when the case against him under Section 65 (a) of the Prohibition Act was pending in the 13th Court. It appears that between 10-2-1053, and 16-3-1953, he was produced before the 13th Court on several occasions, as many as 14 occasions. 2a. It so happened that on 20-3-1953, the accused Shivraj S. Kapoor did not appear because he had absconded and jumped bail and on 20-3-1953, the bond executed by the applicant was forfeited. Against the order of forfeiture made by the learned trial Magistrate, the applicant came up in revision before this Court, and that was by Criminal Revision Application No. 441 of 1953. That application was disposed of by the learned Chief Justice on 3-7-1953. Several contentions were taken in that application, including the contention about the validity of the bond and also about the liability of the surety having come to an end and these contentions were rejected. Failing everything, the learned counsel for the applicant applied to the Court that the amount of the bond was a very large amount and that the same should be made payable by instalments, and the learned Chief Justice directed that the sum of Rs. 20,000 should be paid by four monthly instalments of Rs. 5,000 each, commencing from 17-8-1953, and the subsequent instalments to be payable on the 17th of each succeeding month.

(3.) IT appears that on 16-9-1953, the first instalment of RSECTION 5,000 was paid, but that was not paid on the due date because the due date was 17-8-1953, and the instalment was paid just a day before the second instalment became due. Before the payment of this instalment the accused had, it appears, been arrested on 23-7-1953. It is the case of the applicant that the accused Shivraj S. Kapoor was arrested because of the efforts which the applicant made and because of the information which the applicant gave to the police regarding the whereabouts of the accused.