SUBARNA DEI Vs. BHOLANATH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, whose bonds executed in a proceeding under section 107 Cr. P.C. have been forfeited, move for reversal of the order in this revision. None appears for the opposite party. Me. K.N. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioners, urges that even though by order dated 13 -1 -1984 the learned Magistrate while issuing N.B. Ws against the petitioners for their non -appearance passed order that final order regarding forfeiture of the bonds executed by them would be passed only on their appearance and on hearing them on the allegations made in the report of the' O.I.C., Mangalpur P.S. of their having violated the terms of the bond, yet on the date of their appearance in pursuance of the N.B.Ws. on 2 -2 -84 though they were released on bail, yet an order of forfeiture of their bonds was passed without hearing them. The submission made appears to have force. The relevant portion of the order dated 2 -2 -1984 is as follows: "The C/R is put up on call. 5 delinquents, Nabin Ch. Das, Hariballav Das, Suban Dei, Baidhar Jena and Sarat Ch. Jena appeared and released on bail executed by one Managovinda Das, s/o Baishnab Ch. Das of village Rangasha. My orders dated 13 -1 -1984 are relevant. The amounts of interim bonds have to be forfeited as they have defaulted to keep peace in the locality as per report of the O.I.C. Mangalpur. Let them deposit Rs. 1,000/ - each in this court on the date fixed." From the order it appears that even though the petitioners appeared in court pursuant to the N.B. Ws. and were granted bail, yet the substance of the report of the O.I.C. alleging violation of the conditions of the bonds by them were not brought to their notice, nor Were they given opportunity to contest the same. Such procedure having been followed does not appear from the order of the learned Magistrate. It was incumbent upon him to have afforded an opportunity to the delinquents to know the substance of the report against them and give them an opportunity to contest the same That having not been done, it must be said that the order is vitiated. The rule of audi alteram partem not only applies to executive actions but more so to orders passed by judicial forums. The order has become vulnerable particularly when in the order dated 13 -1 -84 the learned Magistrate had specifically ordered to pass final order regarding forfeiture of the bonds upon hearing the delinquents.

(2.) IN the result, the revision is allowed. The order dated 2 -2 -84 forfeiting the bonds executed by the petitioners is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the learned Magistrate to give opportunity to the petitioners to show cause against the report of the O.I.C. and pass appropriate orders after hearing them. The records be sent back forthwith.