TARNI YADAV Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case raises the question of interpretation of Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The necessary lacts may be shortly stated. There was a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against one Upendra Yadav. He was released on bail, and the petitioners, who stood as his bailors, executed a bond of Rs. 500.00 each for his appearance in court. One of the dates fixed in the case was the 28th December, 1959. Upendra submitted an application for time on that date on the ground that he was ill. He did not file any medical certificate with his application. The Magistrate disbelieved the allegation that he was ill, and rejected his application. He also proceeded to forfeit the bail bond, and, by the same order, issued notice to the petitioners to show cause. The petitioners showed cause on the 29th December, 1959. They also alleged that Upendra was ill, and they filed a medical certificate of Dr. Mahendra Prasad, dated the 28th December, 1959, in which the doctor stated that Upendra (torn) been under his treatment for lever and diarrhoea with effect from the 16th December, 1959. The learned Magistrate considered the certificate, and said with reference to it:

(2.) Appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Indra Bhanu Singh has argued that it was incumbent upon the Magistrate to hold an enquiry before he could forfeit the bond executed by the petitioners, and that his order is vitiated because he did not hold any such enquiry. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that all that was necessary for the Magistrate was to give an opportunity to the petitioners to show cause why the penalty should not be paid, and, since he has considered the cause shown and found it to be insufficient he has not "committed any illegality.

(3.) The relevant part of Section 514 reads: