SOURINDRA LAL DAS & ANR. Vs. LATIKA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application relates to a proceeding in case No. C/131 of 1974 in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta. Mr. Moitra the learned Advocate appearing in support of the motion challenged at first the order dated January 19, 1974 on the ground of non compliance of the provision of Sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Obviously he did so on the basis of the judgment in the case of Bramhananda Goel reported in, 1974 C.L.J. 1079. Since then the decision has been set aside by the Special Bench in the case of Tara Dutta v/s. State Reported in, 79 C.W.N. 929. Mr. Moitra further tried to argue that the recording of the statement was also not in order as he thought that the substance of the examination has not been reduced to writing in terms of the said section. We are unable to accept the validity of its submission. In this connection we may refer to the case of Queen Emperor v/s. Murphy reported in, I.L.R. 8 Alld. 666. In our view there has been sufficient compliance with Sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Mr. Moitra next argued that the order dated February 11, 1974 by which the learned Presidency Magistrate asked the accused to furnish cash ball was wrong. We find substance in this argument. In our view there is no provision for asking the accused to furnish cash bail. A Division Bench Decision of this Court. (Abdul Gani v/s. Emperor), 48 Cr. L. J. 773 held that the order for demanding cash security for bail is illegal. We may also refer to another decision of the Patna High Court (Rajballam Singh v/s. Emperor) in : A.I.R. 1943 Pat. 375 in this connection. There is of course nothing to prevent the court from accepting the cash security for such amount it might think fit if such amount is offered by the accused. In this view of the matter we set aside the portion of the order dated February 11, 1974 which requires the accused to furnish cash bail. The learned Magistrate will pass the necessary order with regard to bail in accordance with law. No other order in the proceeding calls for interference. As the said order is illegal we deem it necessary to exercise our inherent power to set aside the same. The Rule is made absolute to that extent. There will be no order as to costs.