DAYA RAM AND ANR. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the District Magistrate, Solan agreeing in revision with the order of the Magistrate First Class, Arki, whereby the surety bonds of Daya Ram and Hari Krishan have been forfeited and they have been directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 500/ - each, in default their property are to be attached and they may be detained in civil prison,

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision are these. A case under Ss. 447 and 380 I. P. Code was instituted and the Petitioner Daya Ram apprehended that he would be arrested for that offence. Accordingly on 11 -9 -1972 he appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Simla, and prayed for his release on bail. The learned Magistrate made his order on 11 -9 -1972 releasing on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond for appearance in the sum of Rs. 1,000/ - accompanied with one surety bond in the like amount. A further direction was made that both Daya Ram and his surety should appear on 26 -9 -1972 before Magistrate first Class, Arki within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed. A letter dated 12 -9 -1972 was subsequently written by the Simla Magistrate to the Magistrate, first Class, Arki, and it was specified that the surety bond was accepted ensuring presence of the accused before that Court on 26 -9 -1972. On this date, however, neither the accused Daya Ram nor his surety Hari Krishan appeared. Accordingly under Sec. 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the Arki Magistrate forfeited the bonds and issued show -cause notice against Daya Ram and Hari Krishan for the penalty to be realised. The two Petitioners, namely, Daya Ram and Hari Krishan showed the cause, but nevertheless the Magistrate forfeited the two bonds to the extent of one -half and directed the Petitioners to pay the amount and failing that their property were to be attached.

(3.) Against that order, both Daya Ram and Hari Krishan came in revision before the District Magistrate, Solan. Their revision was dismissed and the order of the learned Magistrate was upheld. Against the order of the District Magistrate, the present revision is filed in the High Court.