SHIV RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three criminal revisions raise a common point for determination and, therefore, they will be decided by a single judgment.

(2.) The Petitioners in all the three petitions had stood sureties for some Tibetians for their appearance in the court to stand their trial for offences under Sec. 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, as applied to Himachal Pradesh. These bond were executed for their appearance in the court of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Ruhr, where the accused were to stand their trial for the aforesaid offences in each case. The accused persons failed to appear in the court and accordingly the Sub -Divisional Magistrate by his orders of the same date in all the three cases passed similar Order purporting to be under Sec. 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (shortly called the Code) forfeiting the surety bonds for Rs. 2000/ - each and the amount in each case was ordered to be paid within 15 days failing which the same was ordered to be recovered by issue of warrant of attachment and sale of the movable property belonging to the respective sureties.

(3.) Although no appeal is provided against an order under Sec. 514 of the Code, nevertheless the Petitioner went in appeal to the District Judge, who affirmed the order and dismissed the appeals. Now in these revision petitions the only point that arises for consideration is whether the bond executed by the Petitioner in each case was one under the Code and therefore capable of being forfeited in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 514 of the Code.