STATE Vs. SANTOKH SINGH SAMUND SING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SANTOKH Singh respondent on 1-7-1958, stood surety in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- for the due appearance of one Tikka Ram son of Bua Nandan who was a respondent in the case under Ss. 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code, pending in the Court of Shri Hari Singh Mumtaz, Magistrate, 1st Class, Jullundur. Tikka Ram failed to appear in the Court and the surety in spite of being granted an opportunity to produce him failed to do so. The Magistrate, therefore, took proceedings against Santokh Singh surety under S. 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code and ordered the forfeiture of the full amount to the bond, i. e. Rs. 1,000/ -. In appeal under S. 515, Criminal Procedure Code, the Additional District Magistrate felt that S. 496, Criminal Procedure Code, was inapplicable to proceedings under S. 107, Criminal procedure Code, because the respondent in such a case cannot be said to be an accused and that consequently no bail can be taken under S. 496 for the appearance of a person who is summoned by a Magistrate before him under S. 107, Criminal Procedure Code, and for these reasons, he accepted the appeal and set aside the order of forfeiture of the surety bond. State has come up in revision.

(2.) THE argument of the learned counsel appearing of the State was that S. 496, Criminal procedure Code, is not confined merely to an accused person. The relevant portion of the section runs as follows :

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent could not cite any authority to the contrary or advance any reasons in support of the view taken by the learned Additional District magistrate.