MD. MONOHAR KHAN Vs. TRIPURA ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the order of the District Magistrate dismissing the appeal petition filed under Section 515 Cr. P.C. by which the District Magistrate confirmed the order of the Munsiff -Magistrate, Dharmanagar forfeiting the two bail bonds given by the petitioner as surety for two of the accused persons in G. R. case No. 14 of 1957 in which they were charged under Section 324 I.P.C. and issuing distress warrant for payment of the amount so forfeited

(2.) THE petitioner is a pleader practising in Dharmanagar Courts. He stood surety for the two accused Muchabbir Ali and Taleb All in the above case and he executed two surely bonds on 5 -12 -1958 agreeing to produce them in Courts on the dates to which the case was posted. On 8 -5 -1959 Muchabbir Ali and Taleb Ali were absent in Court and it was stated for the prosecution that they had proceeded to Pakistan. It was, however, mentioned for the surety that they were ill and that they would be produced at the next hearing on 20 -6 -1959. On 20 -6 -1959 also they were absent and it was admitted by the surety that they had left for Pakistan. Thereupon the Court issued notice to the petitioner to show cause why the bail bonds should not be forfeited.

(3.) ON 20 -8 -1959 the petitioner filed another petition stating that he was not in a position to produce the two accused persons and praying that a nominal amount may be forfeited and that he may be excused from paying the balance amounts under the bail bonds. The Court rejected the petition on 21 -8 -1959 and directed him to pay the entire amount. Again on 5 -9 -1959 a third petition was filed by the petitioner to relieve him against the forfeiture of the bail bonds and to accept a nominal amount, but that petition was also rejected by the Court stating that it did not deserve any consideration. Then the petitioner filed an appeal to District Magistrate for cancellation of the order of the Munsiff -Magistrate. On the date to which the appeal was posted namely, 22 -12 -1959 the petitioner was absent and the District Magistrate passed an order after perusal of the record that he did not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court and that the appeal was dismissed.