GIRDHARI LAL DIAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for revision against the order of the Additional District magistrate, Amritsar, dated 13th January, 1964 (which has been affirmed by the additional District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar, to whom a revision was earlier preferred) whereby a bond executed by the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 15,000/for production of a car, which was stated to be the subject-matter of theft, had been forfeited under Section 514, Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) FOR proper appreciation of the question involved in the decision of this petition it is necessary to refer to the circumstances in which the bond in question was executed by the petitioner on 20th October, 1962. Girdhari Lal lodged a report with the police alleging that his Fiat Car No. W G U 1528 had been stolen. Thereupon the police registered a case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and in the course of investigation the car was recovered from the possession of sohan Singh respondent No. 2 on 27th October, 1962. On 30th October, 1962, the petitioner made an application to the Ilaqa Magistrate, Amritsar, that the car be entrusted to him on superdari on the assurance that he would produce the same before the Court or before the police whenever required to do so. The Magistrate thereupon ordered that the car be made over to Girdhari Lal petitioner on executing a bond for Rupees 15,000/ -. In obedience to this order the same day the petitioner executed the "bond in question and undertook to produce the car whenever required to do so failing which he promised to pay Rs. 15,000/- to the state. The car was accordingly given to the petitioner. Sohan Singh from whom the car had been originally taken into possession took up the plea that the car had been sold to him on 3rd October, 1962, several days earlier to the alleged theft. The police after due investigation found that no offence under Section 406, Indian penal Code, was made out and accordingly on its report the Additional District magistrate on 6th December, 1962, cancelled the first information report lodged by the petitioner and directed that a complaint under Section 182, Indian Penal code, be put in Court against him and the car be restored to Sohan Singh from whom it had been recovered. The Additional District Magistrate gave several opportunities to the petitioner to produce the car but he failed to do so. Ultimately on 13th January, 1964, the Additional District Magistrate made the impugned order forfeiting the bond under Section 514, Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner went up in appeal to the District Magistrate and being unsuccessful there approached the Court of Session for setting aside the order of forfeiture but without success. It may be mentioned here that while his appeal and petition for revision were pending before these two Courts he was again afforded ample opportunity to produce the car and though at one stage he represented to the court that the car was in his possession and he could produce it within a month, when he was called upon to put in an affidavit that he had not disposed of the car he refused to put in such an affidavit.

(3.) MR. Y. P. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, admits that the car is not in the petitioner's possession as it had recently been seized by the Bombay police from some one else. In assailing the order of forfeiture Shri Gandhi has merely argued that the bond in question was not executed in favour of the Court but was given to the police and as such the Court had no power to forfeit the bond under the provisions of Section 514, Criminal Procedure Code. In this connection he has placed reliance on Rameshwar Bhartia v. State of Assam, AIR 1952 SC 405, dhannu Lal v. State, AIR 1953 Madh B 94 and Re Prabhu Dayal, AIR 1960 Madh pra 85. It is no doubt correct that in Rameshwar Bhartia's case, AIR 1952 SC 405 their Lordships of the Supreme Court had held that where the security bond is taken from the accused not by the Court but by a particular official such as a procurement Inspector for production of the property before the Court, no action can be taken under Section 514, Criminal Procedure Code. The decision in AIR 1960 Madh Pra 85, is also to the same effect and is based upon this dictum of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. In that case cattle were given on superdari and a bond for their production was executed at the instance of the police. In AIR 1953 Madh Bha 94, the Court was dealing with the forfeiture of a bond executed under the provisions of Opium Act and not under any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby the surety undertook to produce the accused before the police as well as before the Court. Dixit, J. held that since the bond had not been executed in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure, Section 514 could not be used for its forfeiture. It will be noticed that in all the three cases cited on behalf of the petitioner the bond had been taken by the authorities other than the Court though it contained a promise to produce the accused or certain articles whenever required to do so before the Court as well.