BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision application submitted by one Sardar Ralwant Singh against an order of the Additional. District Magistrate jammu dated 1st August 1957 whereby the Additional District Magistrate has confirmed in appeal the order of the trial Magistrare forfeiting an amount of Rs. 1500 which the petitioner, according to the prosecution version, had undertaken to forfeit in case Mohinder Singh accused for whom the petitioner had stood, as a surety made default in making appearance before the trial Magistrate. It appears that the petitioner had stood surety for Mohinder Singh accused who is standing trial for an oifence under Section 457, R. P. C. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had undertaken to produce Mohinder Singh in Court on every day till the case was finally disposed of. After some time the accused Mohinder Singh made himself scarce and failed to appear in the trial Court with the result that proceedings under Section 514, Criminal P. C. were taken against his surety, Balwant Singh. The petitioner appeared in the trial Court to show cause as to why the amount entered in the bail bond should not be forfeited. In the trial court the petitioner pleaded that he was a poor man and as such unable to pay the amount entered in the bail bond and that he had tried his level best to trace out the accused but had failed. This plea of the accused did not find favour with the trial court, with the result that the trial court ordered forfeiture of this amount. Trie petitioner went up in appeal to the learned Additional District Magistrate who rejected his appeal.

(2.) BEFORE me the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised a number of pleas. He started with the submission that the bail proceedings are special proceedings and the procedure provided by the Code in this behalf must be strictly followed. I have no difficulty in agreeing with this submission of the learned Counsel. The learned Counsel has also argued that according to law it is necessary that the time and place at which the accused is to appear must be mentioned in the bond. Referring to the bail bond in question, the learned Counsel has sub-mitted that all that the blood contains is that the accused shall appear in the Court till the decision of the case. The argument is that this condition is both vague and uncertain and not such as should entail any penalty upon the surety. It is obvious that the time and place of the Court is not mentioned in the bond. The learned Counsel has in this behalf referred me to Emperor v. Chintarain A. I. R. 1938 Nag 243 (A) in which it has been laid down: Bail proceedings are special proceedings about which there are specific provisions in the Code and they must be strictly followed. Section 499 slates that the time and place at which the accused is to appear must be mentioned in the bond and Clause (2), Section 499 says that if the accused is to appear in some other court the bond must expressly say so. It is not open to the Court to depart from these provisions. Where therefore there is no mention in a surety bond of the Court in which the accused is directed to appear and all that is mentioned is that the surety undertakes to produce the accused in "the Court at B till the decision" it is impossible to enforce a vague and slovenly bond of this character.

(3.) AS against this, the learned Advocate General argued that though there is some vagueness in the bond with regard to the time and place of the Court in which the accused was to be produced, yet it cannot be denied on behalf of the surety that he knew where the accused had to present himself. But this argument has been met by the petitioner's learned Counsel by referring to another passage in the same judgment which runs as follows: What the Surety himself thought about his liability under the bond is immaterial, for the terms of the surety bond have to be determined by the language used in the bond itself. Also, it is not for the surety to show that the bond is illegal, but for the Crown to show that the document, which it wishes to enforce against him, is one which can be so enforced under the law. The petitioner's learned Counsel has again referred to Hoshan Lal v. State wherein it has been held: It was imperative, according to Section 499 of the Cr. PC that the time and the place had to be mentioned in the bond and if the place of the court where the attendance was required was not at all mentioned, that surety bond will be invalid agreement. The learned Advocate General has referred to Bahar Husain v. State. In this ruling also it has been laid down that "the terms of a bail bond have to be strictly construed. "