STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SHIV PRASAD LAL SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court by an order dated 4-8-59 directed that notices be issued to Shiv Prasad Lal Seth and Rai Sharda Prasad Chowdhary, Pleader Hazaribagh, to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt of Court for scandalising the Court of Mr. S. S. Singh, Magistrate first class, Hazaribagh, by making certain aspersions in respect of the Judicial orders passed by that Magistrate and those aspersions were made in a notice sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar and others under their signatures dated 2-8-56.

(2.) The facts relevant to the present proceeding for contempt are these. On 13-5-55 the Chairman of the Hazaribagh Municipality instituted a case against Nemichand Jain and Shyam Sunder Sao in respect of certain offences under the Bihar Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate at Hazaribagh. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence the same day and summoned both the accused fixing 1-6-55 for trial. It appears that Nemichand Jain appeared on 1-6-55 and he was ordered to be released on bail of Rs. 1000/- and Shiv Prasad Lal Seth stood surety for him. The other accused Shyam Sunder Sao did not appear on that day and Nemichand Jain undertook to produce him on the next day. The same day the case was transferred to the file of Mr. S. S. Singh, Magistrate 1st class, Hazaribagh, and 15-6-1955 was fixed for the production of the other accused. The trial of the case commenced and continued and on 4-4-56 Mr. Singh directed the case to be put up on 7-4-56 for argument directing the accused to be present in person. On 7-4-56 Shyam Sunder Sao was present but the other accused Nemichand Jain was absent. There being no petition either on behalf of Nemichand Jain or on behalf of his bailor accounting for the absence of Nemichand, the learned Magistrate forfeited the bail bond of Rs. 1000/- under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing that a notice should be issued on the bailor to show cause by the next date as to why he should not be called upon to pay the penalty of the forfeited bail amount of Rs. 1000/-. A bailable warrant of arrest was to be issued against Nemichand Jain returnable by 12-4-1956. Nemichand Jain, however, surrendered on 9-4-56 and filed a petition accounting for his absence stating therein that due to certain breakdown of his vehicle in the interior or Daudnagar sub-division he could not be present on the date fixed and he made a prayer for recall of the warrant of arrest. The learned Magistrate released him on a fresh bail of Rs. 2000/-. On the same date the bailor Shiv Prasad Lal Seth also'filed a similar petition stating the grounds for the absence of Nemichand Jain and made a prayer to recall the order of forfeiture. On 4-5-56 the learned Magistrate held that the cause shown was unsatisfactory but he remitted half of the forfeited amount directing the bailor to deposit the remaining Rs. 500/- within a fortnight from that date. The last order dated 21-5-56 indicates that the said sum of Rs. 500/- was not deposited and the learned Magistrate directed that distress warrant should be issued against the bailor returnable within a certain time.

(3.) Shiv Prasad Lal Seth being aggrieved by the said order of forfeiture preferred a criminal appeal (No. 127 of 1956) in the court of the Sessions Judge of Hazaribagh and the learned Sessions Judge allowed this appeal on 30-6-56 holding that the order of forfeiture was wrong. It appears from the judgment of this criminal appeal that one of be points raised was that there was no enquiry before the order of forfeiture was passed and reliance was placed upon the provisions of Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the decision in the case of Thakur Krishna Narain Singh v. The King Emperor, 3 Pat LT 381: (AIR 1922 Pat 242) and while dealing with this point the learned Sessions Judge observed that the argument raised about no enquiry having been made had every force and the learned Magistrate ought to have taken evidence and satisfied himself before passing an order for the forfeiture of the bail bond. The other illegality in the bail bond was that it was made out in favour of the King Emperor which was obviously erroneous and on these two grounds the appeal succeeded.