JAGANNATH ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case raises a question regarding the interpretation of Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In G. R. Case No. 90 of 1971 on the file of the Munsif -Magistrate, Narsinghpur, Mahadeb Behera was one of the accused. While being released on bail, he had executed a bond for his appearance in Court on all subsequent dated of hearing. The petitioner Jagannath Raut was one of his sureties who had executed a like bond in favour of the Court undertaking to produce the accused in Court and in default to forfeit a sum of Rs. 200/ - to Government. On 22.3.1973, which was one of the dates fixed for trial of the case, the accused Mahadeb Behera absented himself from Court. The Court thereupon directed notice to be issued to the bailor to show cause why the bond amount shall not be realised from him. On 24.3.1973, the petitioner Jagannath Raut appeared in Court in response to the notice issued to him and stated that his village is at some distance from the village of the accused and that therefore he was not aware as to why the latter did not appear in Court on the date fixed and prayed for a month's time to cause production of the accused in Court. The Magistrate held that the petitioner failed to show sufficient reason for not producing the accused on the date fixed and ordered that the petitioner should pay Rs. 200/ - to Government. For realisation of this amount, the directed issue of a distress warrant against him.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Cuttack, wherein it was contended inter alia that due to the fact that the village of the accused is far off from his village he was unable to produce the accused on the date fixed, that when in response to the show cause notice he appeared in Court and asked for a month's time to produce the accused, the learned Magistrate erred in not allowing time as prayed for by him, and that in any case, when other courses were open to the Court to enforce attendance of the accused, the Magistrate was not justified in forfeiting the bond executed by the petitioner and in issuing a distress warrant against him for realisation of the amount. The Additional District Magistrate rejected all these contentions and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.

(3.) SECTION 514, Criminal Procedure Code in so far as material reads thus : -