RABINDRA CHANDRA CHANDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against an order of the Additional District Magistrate, 24--Parganas forfeiting the bail bonds of the petitioners who stood sureties for accused Muktar Singh who had been committed to the Sessions Court under Section 302/34 I. P. C. and imposing a penalty of Rs. 200/- on each of the petitioners, remitting Rs. 800/- out of each bond, the petitioners having each stood surety to the extent of Rs. 1000/-. A bail order in the case, after commitment, was made by the learned Sessions Judge, Alipore -- his order being to release the accused Muktar Singh on bail io the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, 24--Parganas. The bail bond was executed before the Additional District Magistrate's 24-Parganas who is in charge of the District Magistrate's functions under the Criminal Procedure Code in 24-Parganas district. On the date fixed for the trial of the case, namely, 13-3-61, Muktar Singh failed to appear before the Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the case had been allotted for trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore, thereupon observed is his order dated 13-3-61 that he could not take any steps as the bailbonds were not before his court and he directed the A. D. M., 24--Parganas to please take necessary steps against the sureties under Section 514 of the Cr. P. C. On receipt of a copy of that order, the Additional district Magistrate, 24--Parganas by his order dated 17-4-61 forfeited the bail bonds and directed the sureties to show cause why they should not pay the entire amount of the bond of each of them or in default, to pay up the entire amount. The sureties appeared and showed cause; and after hearing them, particularly in consideration of the fact that the accused Muktar Singh had subsequently been produced by the sureties, the learned Additional District Magistrate reduced the penalty to l/5th of the amount of the bond, namely, to the sum of Rs. 200/-. It is against that order that the petitioners have come up.

(2.) Mr. A.K. Das Gupta, has urged that since the bond was for the appearance of the accused Muktar Singh before the Court of the Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge, the Additional District Magistrate could not forfeit the bond and direct payment of the penalty, even though the bond had been taken by him under the order of the learned Sessions Judge. In support of this contention, Mr. Das Gupta has referred to the wording of Sub-section (1) of Section 514 Cr. P. C. which is as follows :

(3.) It does rot appear that there is any decision of this Court taking a contrary view; and though in view of the wording of Sub-section (1) of Sections 514 Cr. P. C. the view taken by the Allahabad High Court may also appear to be equally reasonable, we do not see sufficient reason to refer the matter to a Full Bench, because we are not prepared to say that the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court led by Jenkins C. J. was an erroneous view.