M HOMI Vs. DEPUTY COMMR OF SINGHBHUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed on behalf of two persons, M. Homi and Syed Taffajul Kari, who stood sureties on behalf of one Aly Khan. Aly Khan was fined a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and was sentenced also to undergo rigourus imprisonment for four years by the 1st Special Tribunal, Calcutta. He filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence in this Court which was dismissed. Aly Khan tried thereafter to move the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and applied to the Provincial Government under Section 401, Criminal P. C. for suspension of the sentence passed on him pending the disposal of his appeal in the Privy Council. The Government of Bihar by a Resolution dated 17-10-1946, suspended the sentence and imposed certain conditions on Aly Khan. He was asked to furnish security worth Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of either the Sub-divisional Officer, Jamshedpur, or the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum and undertaking to furnish proof by 1-12-1946, of his having taken all necessary steps for the filing of his appeal and also to surrender to the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum within three days of the receipt of the notice of the order or judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy, Council if by the said order or judgment, the sentence was upheld wholly or in part. Aly Khan preferred his appeal to the Privy Council and furnished proof thereof to the Provincial Government as required under the first condition of his release. Aly Khan expressed his desire to be present personally in England to instruct his counsel and applied to the Government for a passport to enable him to undertake the journey. The Government was pleased to grant him the necessary passport, being No. 13030 dated 31-1-1949. In compliance with condition No. 2 of the Resolution, Aly Khan executed a bond for Rs. 50,000/- and induced the petitioners to act as sureties for him. The petitioners accordingly executed two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each before the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum. The application of Aly Khan for a passport was granted by the Provincial Government without ' any reference to the present petitioners.

(2.) The appeal of Aly Khan to the Privy Council, which was admitted by special leave, was, however, not disposed of, as in the meantime, the Act abolishing the jurisdiction of the Privy Council was passed and all Indian Appeals pending in the Privy Council were transferred to the Supreme Court of India. It appears that the appeal of Aly Khan was dismissed by the Supreme Court some time in November, 1950. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum issued a notice on 8-12-1950, to the petitioners to procure the surrender of Aly Khan within three days of the receipt of the notice, failing which the petitioners were threatened with action under Section 514, Criminal P. C. On 16-12-1950, the petitioners showed cause stating that they had undertaken to produce Aly Khan after the decision of the appeal by the Judicial Committee, and since the appeal was actually decided by the Supreme Court, they were not bound by the terms of the bail bond. It was also contended that Aly Khan was given a passport by the Bihar Government and as such the petitioners were not bound to produce him. Certain other points of a technical nature were also pressed in the show cause petition. The learned Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum proceeded to hear the matter after due notice to the State when on 13-3-1951, he received a memo from the Sessions Judge of Manbhum-Singhbhum calling for the records of the case and staying further proceeding's pending the disposal of the Criminal Revision filed in this Court. It appears that the petitioners moved the learned Sessions Judge for the quashing of the proceedings started by the Deputy Commissioner against the petitioners. The proceedings were accordingly stayed.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge of Manbhum Singhbhum by his order dated 12-11-1951, dismissed the application of the petitioners holding that the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum had jurisdiction to start proceedings for forfeiture of the bail bonds. The petitioners thereafter moved this Court. In the meantime, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in the Criminal Revision application referred to above was communicated to the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum, who resumed further hearing in the proceedings against the petitioners and held that the petitioners were liable to forfeit their surety bonds, because the objection that on account of the transfer of the case from the Privy Council to the Supreme Court they were not bound to produce Aly Khan in terms Of the surety bonds was not entertainable. It was also held that it appeared that the accused Aly Khan had absconded and was probably now in Pakistan and since they were liable to produce him within three days after the receipt of the notice of the order or judgment of the Supreme Court and they had failed to do so, the bail bonds executed by the two petitioners had been forfeited. He called upon them either to pay Rs. 25,000/- each or to show cause why it should not be paid; the cause was to be shown by 5-12-1951. The present application in this Court came up for disposal before Bamaswami, J. who by his order dated 8-1-1952, was pleased to refer it for decision by a Division Bench.