STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SATYA NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Jagdish Lal of village Bishanpura, Police Station Pilani (Rajasthan), was involved in a case under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code. On 26th July, 1968, Satya Narain stood surety for him before the police undertaking to produce him either before the police or a competent Court, if and when required and if he failed to do so, he undertook to nay Rs. 2,000/- to the State of Haryana. The case against Jagdish Lal was tried by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani, and he did not appear before the Court, with the result that the learned Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants against him but to no effect. Notice was, consequently, given to Satya Narain surety, who took a number of adjournments to produce the accused in Court but was unable to do so. As a result, the learned Magistrate passed an order under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, forfeiting the surety bond furnished by him and directed him to pay a fine of Rs, 1,000/ -.

(2.) AS a result of the said forfeiture, Satya Narain filed an appeal against the above order and the same was accept" ed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hissar, on the basis of a decision of this Court in Surjit Singh v. State 1964 Cur LJ 202 (Punj), where it was held by Shamsher Bahadur, J. that where an undertaking is given by the surety before a Police Officer that the accused would be produced before the Court, it was a promise made to a particular official and not to a Court and such a security bond could not be forfeited under the provisions of Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) AGAINST that decision, the State of Haryana filed the present revision petition in this Court. It, in the first instance, came up for hearing before my learned brother who was of the view that there was a conflict amongst the various High Courts regarding the interpretation of the provisions of Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and since an important question of law was involved, which was bound to arise in a number of, cases, he thought it expedient to refer this case to a larger Bench. That is how the matter has been placed before us.