SURJIT SINGH S KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question which arises for deter-mination in this petition for revision is whether there could be a valid forfeiture of a bond under Section 514 of the Criminal P. C. executed not at the instance of a Court but by a police officer.

(2.) THE petitioner Surjit Singh stood surety on 5th of April, 1961, for one Bhagtu who was an accus-ed person in a case pending in the Court of the Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh. The bail-bond of the petitioner was in respect of a sum of Its. 1,000/. to ensure the appearance of the accused in the Court of the Magistrate. The allegation of the petitioner that the bond was executed before a police officer and not in a Court of law is not disputed. The accused did not appear in court on 4th of October 1961 which was the date fixed in the case and the report on the summons was that he was not traceable. A nonbailable warrant was accordingly issued but again it could not be served on the accused person. The petitioner as surety was then summoned on 13th of November, 1961. Despite the time allowed to the petitioner he could not produce the accused in Court and made a statement on 15th December, 1961, that he (the accused) was not traceable. The bail-bond was accordingly cancelled by order of the Court passed on 1st of November, 1961. All that the petitioner said in the Court was that in spite of his best efforts the accused Bbagtu could not be traced. The Court felt obliged to make an order of forfeiture of the entitle amount of Rs. 1,000/covered by the bail-bond. It is true that no other point except his failure to trace the accused was taken before the Magistrate who made an order on 26th of February, 1962, that the amount of Rs. 1,000/should be deposited in Court before 12th of March, 1962.

(3.) AN appeal was preferred to the District Magistrate, Ambala, and the ground in the forefront was that the order of forfeiture could not be made as the bond was executed before the police and not in Court. This appeal was dismissed by the District Magistrate, Ambala, on 25th of May, 1962, although the petitioner was not present. The ground of dismissal was that the appeal was barred by limitation, it having been filed 52 days after the announcement of the order of the Magistrate. A further petition for revision before the same authority having been dismissed, the petitioner has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.