NETAR PARKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The sole ground urged by Mr. Kotwal in support of this revision is that the bond, which was furnished by his client is not in accordance with the requirement of proforma prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (1933 A.D.) in form No. XLII of Schedule V appended to the said code. It was further urged by Mr. Kotwal that his client had no where bound himself to forfeit to the Government the amount of surety bond. Reference in this behalf was made by him to the bail bond which was ordered to be forfeited by the trial court, which is on the file of the trial court at page 4 thereof. In this bond, the petitioner has undertaken to deposit the amount of the bond i.e. Rs. 10,000/ - in the Treasury of the Government of the State.

(2.) THE bond furnished by the petitioner in case titled State versus Raj Kumar and others, under Section 307/34 RPC in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu being not inconformity with the requirement of law is evident that there is nothing to show whereby the petitioner has bound himself down to forfeit the amount of Rs.10.000 as has been ordered by the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. 3. Question of forfeited will only rise when there is a proper and duly executed bond as envisaged under law. Provision being penal in nature, strict compliance therewith is required. Besides, this the matter is no more resintegra in view of the decision of this court reported in AIR 1958 J&K 38 (Balwant Singh and another, Applicants vs State, Non applicant), wherein the learned Judge has held as under: "(4) There is yet another point raised by the petitioners learned counsel. In the bail bond it is stated that in case the accused makes default in appearance, then the surety would deposit Rs.1500/ - in treasury out of his own pocket. In &is behalf the petitioners learned counsel has referred to Form 42 of Schedule in which the form prescribed is that "in case the accused makes default in appearance, the surety bond himself to forfeit to His Highness The Maharaja Bahadur (now Government of Jammu and Kashmir) the sum of ". He submits that in the bail bond in question all that the petitioner has stated is that he would deposit Rs. 1500/ - in treasury. This, in the submission of the learned counsel, does not conform to the form prescribed by law. The men fact, argues the learned counsel, that the accused has undertaken to deposit money in treasury without mentioning which treasury he meant, would not mean that he had undertaken to forfeit Rs.1500/ -to His Highness the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir (now the Government). He has in this behalf referred me to State of U.P. vs Mohammad Sayeed (S) AIR 1957 SC 587 (D) wherein it has been held.

(3.) "Where the surety had executed a bond in 1953, under S. 499 Cr. P.C. whereby he was to forfeit to "the King Emperor Qaiser -e -Hind" a certain sum of money if her made default in procuring the attendance of the accused before the court, and the bond was not one by which he bound himself to forfeit the said sum either to the Government of the Union of India or that of the State (of Uttar Pradesh) the bond executed was unknown to the law of the Republic of India under the Code of Criminal procedure when it was executed Section 514 of the Cr. P.C. empowers a Court to forfeit a bond which has been executed under the provisions of that code and since the bond executed by the surety was not one under the Cr. P.C. resort cannot be had to the provisions of S, 514 of the code to forfeit the same".