KARANSINGH MALLAJI Vs. GIRIRAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by a supratdar of certain property in charge of the Court. When on his own request the Court relieved him and took over the property there was a shortage. Its value has been fixed after due enquiry by the Magistrate at Rs. 954-6-0. The applicant has accordingly been called upon to make good this loss by depositing it in the Court. Presumably distress warrant has been issued. Meanwhile, the applicant went to the Sessions Judge who has dismissed his application. He has come here with what he describes as grounds of law invalidating the order of the Magistrate. The first is, that the bond not having been taken in the Court but by the police, the Court was incompetent to order a forfeiture; secondly, that there was no direction on the applicant supratdar to produce in Court or before any court-servant the goods entrusted; thirdly, that the bond itself was not for the production of the goods or for payment to Government; in fact, its words are altogether meaningless.

(2.) THE facts of the case were simple. In course of a criminal case, which seems to have been started in 1949, a big stack of hay came in charge of the Magistrate. Since it was an exhibit which could not be stored in the Magistrate's malkhana, he directed the police to entrust it to a supratdar on condition that he would produce it or its declared value when so called upon. Accordingly, the petitioner who was unconnected with the parties in the criminal case, took charge of the hay-stack and executed a supratnama setting out that he -- Karansingh -- was accepting the entrustment (supratgi) of the stack of hay containing about one lac and sixty thousand bundles and worth about Rs. 5000/- as estimated by panchas, who also signed the bond. "in case I neglect to discharge the burden oe this entrustment, I shall pay to Government khajana a sum of Rs. 5,000/-". This is signed by the applicant as well as two panchas in that capacity. The applicant petitioned the Court to relieve him of the supratgi. Accordingly, the Court deputed its nazir to go and take charge of the stack of hay and entrust it to some other supratdar. The nazir accordingly went there and counted the bundles in presence of the applicant, and noted that there was a shortage in the count which, on proportionate valuation on the basis of Rs. 5000/-for the whole, was worth Rs. 954-6-0. What was left of the haystack, was taken from the charge of the applicant, and put in supratgi of another man. The applicant himself was called upon to make good the shortage by payment of this sum.

(3.) THE first ground urged is that the bond having been taken by the police, Section 514, Cr. P. C. , has no application; the Magistrate could not order any forfeiture on its basis. Authorities have been cited --Rameshwar Bhartia v. State of Assam, AIR 1952 SC 405, and following it in Prabhu Dayal v. State, 1960 MPC 4: (AIR 1960 Madh Pra 85 ). There is no doubt that a bond taken by any authority without the intervention or direction of the Court cannot be forfeited by the Court, even if it is for production before it. The obvious reason is that the Court has not taken the bond. For example, in the Assam case, the bond had been taken by the Director, Food Supplies on his own responsibility at a time when there was no case at all. He had, however, envisaged the future possibility of there being a case before a Court, and taken a bond for the production of the attached articles before the Court in which he was in future to start the prosecution. Similarly, in the case reported in 1960 MPC 4: (AIR 1960 Madh Pra 85) (supra), the police took charge of certain cattle at the time when there was no case before the Court and entrusted it to somebody. In such cases no action could be taken under Section 514, because the Court had not come into the picture. "whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which a bond under this Code has been taken. . . . . . . . that such bond has been forfeited. . . . . . . . "