SURAJ NARAIN Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for revision against the order of the Additional District Magistrate passed under Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner stood surety for one Chaman Lal and was unable to produce him on the date of hearing. A number of opportunities were given to him to do so, but as he could not produce Chaman Lal, the learned Magistrate forfeited his surety bond in the sum of Rs. l,000/ -. An appeal was taken to the Additional District Magistrate and was dismissed. It is against the decision of the Additional District Magistrate that the present petition has been preferred.

(2.) THE first contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Additional District Magistrate could not hear the appeal and, therefore, his order is without jurisdiction, and should be quashed. For this Contention, he relies on two Single Bench decisions of this Court in Santokh Singh v. State Cr. Rev. 138 -D of 1961 (Criminal Revision No. 138 -D of 1961) decided by Harbans Singh J. and State v. Ravinder Kumar Cr. Rev. 25 -D of 1961 (Criminal Revision No. 252 -D of 1961) decided by P.D. Sharma J. on the 2nd of August, 1962, but in view of the Supreme Court decision in Central Talkies Ltd. v. Dwarka Dass : A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 606. I am of the view that the authority of the decisions quoted above has been shaken. It was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Central Talkies Limited case, : A I. R. 1961 S. C 606 as under:

(3.) The notification which was issued about Mr. Brijpal Singh Seth and which has been quoted already, invested him with all the powers of the District Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as under any other law for the time being in force. He was thus competent to deal with an application under the Act for permission to file a civil suit without special authorisation from the District Magistrate. Learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that the definition of "District Magistrate" clearly showed that in addition to the District Magistrate only an officer specially authorised by him could act under the Eviction Act and he referred to Sub -section (2) of Section 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provided: