SASANKA NATH CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order of the District Magistrate, Tripura dated 25-07-1958 imposing a penalty of Rs. 300/- on the Petitioner.

(2.) The Petitioner had stood surety and executed a bail bond for the appearance in Court of an accused person by name Tapesh Bhattacherjee who along with 3 others had been charged in G.R. case No. 144 of 1956 before the S. D. M., Agartala. It appears that one Excise Jamadar Kshetra Mohan Das along with 2 other Excise Guards had arrested the 4 accused persons for an offence under the Tripura Excise Act of 1296 T.E on 31-05-1956 on the allegation that the accused persons were found selling unlicensed wine in a Restaurant conducted by one of the accused namely. Sri Parimal Chakravorty. Tapesh Bhattacherjee was an employee in the Restaurant. The Petitioner stood surety for Parimal Chakraborty who was his son and who was the owner of the Restaurant and for Tapesh Bhattacherjee, the employee in the Restaurant. The case was charge-sheeted on 01-06-1956 and it underwent several adjournments and was transferred from Magistrate to Magistrate and finally taken on the file of the District Magistrate himself. It underwent several adjournments before the District Magistrate also. During all this period from 1-6-1956 to 10-10-1957 all the accused persons were present for the hearings. But the case was being adjourned even without a charge being framed for the reason that the prosecution was not ready to go on with the case. On 10-10-1957 the accused Tapesh Bhattncherjee was absent. Then notice was issued to the bailor to produce the said Bhattaeherjee and also to show cause by 25-10-1957 why his bail bond should not be forfeited. It may be mentioned that on 10-10-1957 the District Magistrate was not in station and the order appears to have been passed by some other person on his behalf. In any case, the case cannot have been taken up for hearing on that day in the absence of the District Magistrate.

(3.) On 25-10-1957 the District Magistrate passed an order that he did not consider the cause shown by the bailor as satisfactory and that the bail bond was therefore forfeited and he posted the case to 1-11-1937. On 1-11-1957 we find another order by the District Magistrate to the effect that he had seen the cause shown by the bailors and that he was exonerating the bailors on that occasion. The case thereafter underwent many adjournments again and was posted to 21-5-1958. On that date a petition filed by the petitioner for exempting the surety from liability under the hail bond was considered by the District Magistrate and the said petition was rejected and it was directed that separate proceedings against the bailor namely, the present petitioner should be started and Distress Warrant for realisation of the forefeited amount should be taken accordingly.