SHRIRAM GHASIRAM SONI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was granted bail of Rs. 1,00,000 (one lac) by this Court. One Ramkishore son of Shiv Kumar offered to stand surety for him and appeared before the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) with a solvency certificate issued on the basis of the immoveable properry he owned. The Magistrate declined to accept him as a surety being of view that the solvency of rs. 1. 00,000 on the basis of moveables was required since on forfeiture of the bond the law contemplated attachment of moveables. Where immoveable property was offered as a security, the Magistrate said, it could only be done by mortgaging the property in the name of the Court. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has come up in revision.

(2.) I am cited two authorities, one of the Lahore High Court reported in k. L. Gauba v. Emperor (AIR 1937 Lah. 411) and the other of the Allahabad High Court reported in Nisar Ahmed v. Emperor (A I R 1945 All. 389), which lend support to the Magistrate's view. Though in the Lahore case, Din Mohammad, J. did not finally decide whether the sufficiency of a surety could be ascertained only from the moveable property he possessed or whether his immoveable property also could be taken into account. His Lordship observed that "the Magistrate would be committing no illegality in insisting that in the light of the provisions laid down in section 514, criminal Procedure Code, that security alone could be termed sufficient which was backed by moveable property of the value of the amount secured. " in the Allahabad case, Malik, J. gave the dictum that where security of immoveable property was given, the bond required registration.

(3.) I find two rulings cited in Gauba's case, one of Reid, C. J. in King emperor v. Kaim Khan (18 P R 1906), wherein the learned Chief Justice remarked :