DHANNU LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition from an Order of the District Magistrate of Shivpuri upholding an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Shivpuri by which he directed the forfeiture of a bond furnished by the applicant for the appearance of certain persons who had been implicated for an offence under the Gwalior Opium Act, Smt. 1980. By the bond the applicant undertook to produce the accused persons before the police or the Customs Department or the Court on any day as directed. It appears that on 26. 4. 49 the applicant, who stood surety for the appearance of the accused persons in the sum of Rs. 4000/- was directed by the Superintendent Customs Department Shivpuri, to produce the accused persons before him, on 2. 5. 1949. The applicant failed to do so. Thereupon, the Superintendent, Customs Department made a report to the Magistrate for the forfeiture of the surety bond. The report was purported to be Under Section 58, Excise Act. The learned Magistrate held that the provisions of the Excise Act were not applicable to the forfeiture of a bond taken under the Opium Act. This order of the Magistrate was upheld by the Sessions Judge of Shivpuri. In a revision petition from that order of the Sessions Judge it was held by Shinde J. , (as he then was) that as the Opium Act did not prescribe any procedure with regard to the forfeiture of the bond taken under that Act, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code "would govern the forfeiture of the security taken under the Opium Act. " The learned Judge remitted the case to the lower Court for "being dealt with according to law. " When the case went back the Magistrate following the procedure laid down in Section 514, Criminal P. C. found that the bond had been broken and made an order directing the forfeiture of the bond.

(2.) IN this revision petition Mr. Anand learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct the bond to be forfeited under Section 514, Criminal P. C. as the bond in question was not taken under the Code and was not forfeited for appearance before a Court. On the other hand Mr. Mungre the learned Government Advocate for the State maintained that this question was concluded by the decision of Shinde J. , in?state v. Darshan Lal Criminal Revn. No. 239 of 1949 when he held that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code would apply to the forfeiture of the bond and directed the Magistrate to dispose of the case according to law.

(3.) IN my opinion, the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is well-founded and must be accepted. It is conceded that Section 514 is the only section in the Code under which, if at all the Magistrate would have jurisdiction to forfeit the bond. Sub-section (1) of this section provides: Whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which a bond under this Code has been taken, or of the Court of a Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of the First Class, or, when the bond is for appearance before a Court to the satisfaction of such Court, that such bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof, or to show cause why it should not be paid.