HIRANMOY BISWAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Sessions Judge has made this reference under Section 438 Cri.P.C. with a recommendation that the order of the S.D.M., Khowai, dated 16.3.60, issuing notice to the sureties Shri Hiranmay Biswas and Jagneswar Kar to show cause why the bail bond executed by them on 12.10.57 to produce one Surendra Kumar Nath in the Court of the S.D.M. on each date to be fixed, should not be forfeited, should be set aside.

(2.) SURENDRA Kumar Nath was arrested by the Inspector of Land Customs, under Section 173 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 for illegal possession of 13 pieces of Arabiah and London gold. He was produced before the S.D.M., Khowai under Section 174 of the said Act with a covering letter from the said Inspector stating that pending intimation to the Customs Collector, Shillong the arrested person was being sent, for favour of necessary action under Section 175 of the said Act. Section 175 of the Sea Customs Act is as follows:

(3.) ON the strength of this letter, the Magistrate issued notice to the sureties on 29.1.60 to produce Surendra Kumar Nath in Court on 15.2.60. As they were unable to produce him, the Magistrate issued a further notice to the sureties on 16.3.60 to show cause by 18.4.60 why the bail bond should not be forfeited. It is this order of the Magistrate which is now complained against. The sureties subsequently filed a petition before the Magistrate stating that he had no jurisdiction to forfeit the bail bond. But the Magistrate passed an order on 30.4.60 that the said petition should be filed in a higher Court and that he cannot pass any order thereon. He however granted them time to move the higher Court. It is under those circumstances that the Sessions Judge was moved by the sureties.