KUNDAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KUNDAN Singh applicant executed a bond under Section 499, Criminal P.C., in the sum of Rs. 1,000/ - by which he covenanted to produce Bir Singh, an accused in a case under Section 325, I.P.C., when required by the Court. Personal bond executed by Bir Singh on the back of the security deed was not thumb marked or signed by him. Bir Singh did not appear on 11 -10 -1950, the date fixed in the case. The Magistrate, 1st Class, Barnala directed the security bond to be forfeited and ordered the entire amount to be realised from the surety. On an appeal against, the said order the learned Additional District Magistrate, Barnala reduced the amount to Rs. 800/ - and rejected other objections taken by the surety. Kundan Singh has presented this petition to revise the order of the Additional District Magistrate.

(2.) THE only point raised by the petitioner's counsel is that as the accused Bir Singh himself did not execute a bond for his appearance but Kundan Singh alone executed a bond as a surety, the surety does not become amenable to the penalties contemplated by law in the event of his failure to produce the accused. 'Wadhawa Singh v. Emperor' : AIR 1928 Lah 318; 'Brahmanand Misra v. Emperor', : AIR 1939 All 682 and 'Imarat Mallik v. Emperor' : AIR 1938 Cal 255, have been cited as authorities in support of the argument. I do not see any substance in the contention because I am of the view that the two bonds contained different undertakings and were not co -related. The validity of the one does not depend on the validity of the other.