RANANANDA CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners stood surety for accused Prahallad Choudhury in Sessions Trial No. 3/3A of 1975 and had executed bonds for production of the accused for Rs. 200/ -. The Sessions Case was being tried by the Sessions Judge on Circuit at Angul. The accused did not appear for some days of trial on some grounds and the sureties also failed to produce him. Consequently the Sessions judge forfeited the bail bonds and issued notices to the petitioners as to why the penalty thereunder should not be realised from them. In fact, after forfeiture of the bonds a Misc. Case No, 18 of 77 was started wherein notices were given to the bailor petitioners. Disposing of the Misc. Case, the Sessions Judge observed thus : -

(2.) IT was contended by Mr. Tripathy, the. learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sessions Judge has acted contrary to the pro -visions of Section 448 Criminal Procedure Code corresponding to 514 Criminal Procedure Code (old) inasmuch as he has not issued any show -cause notice to the bailors as to why the bail bonds should not be forfeited. In support of his contention, he has cited AIR 1960 Orissa 108 : (1960 Cri LJ 842).

(3.) THE above case arose out of reference made by the Sessions Judge to the effect that the learned Magistrate has acted irregularly. According to the Sessions Judge, a notice to the surety was a must calling upon him to show cause and after hearing him alone, the order of forfeiture could have been passed. In that reference certain citations were referred to. But, ultimately, this Court held otherwise as quoted above. Subsequently, this case has been followed in the case of Jagannath Rout v. State of Orissa : (1975 Cri LJ 1684) (Orissa), decided by Hon'ble Justice Patra as A. C. J. In that case, Section 514 was under consideration and it was held that the Magistrate can straightway issue a notice to the surety to show cause why the penalty mentioned in the bond should not be recovered from him and it is at that stage that the surety is entitled to put forth such plea as would be, available to him. X X X X There is thus a clear distinction between a bond for appearance on one side and a bond for keeping the peace or for being of good behaviour on the other. Doubtless in both the cases, it has to be proved to the satisfaction of the court that there has been a forfeiture of the condition of the bond and he has also to record the grounds of such proof. But so far as a bond for appearance is concerned, the very fact that the accused has failed to appear in Court on the date fixed is sufficient proof of the fact that the condition of the bond has been forfeited and no further proof is necessary.