STATE Vs. RAM PRATAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has come before under the following circumstances. One Ram Pratap accused was tried for offences undersub-section302 and 507, Penal Code and acquitted by the Sessions Judge of Ganganagar by his judgment dated 23rd of August 1961. The State preferred an appeal to this Court against the order of acquittal. The State appeal was admitted by this Court on the 23rd of January 1962. While admitting the appeal it was ordered that a warrant of arrest be issued against Ram Pratap who will be produced before the District Magistrate, Ganganagar and it will be for him to admit the accused on bail or send him to jail. The District Magistrate reported to this Court that the accused was arrested and was released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs. 25,000/- and a surety bond by Nathuram in the like amount. The State appeal was heard and decided by this Court on 29th of March 1963. Ram Pratap was convicted undersub-section302 and 307, Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302, Penal Code and to 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307, Penal Code-Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The Sessions judge, Ganganagar was directed to send the accused to jail. Ram Pratap, however, did not surrender and on 27th of August 1963 we ordered the forfeiture of the personal bond as well as of the bail bond. We further ordered that the notices be issued to the accused and his surety to pay the penalty of these bonds or to show cause why the amounts due under the bond should not be recovered from them. Thereupon Nathuram filed a reply to the notice on the 23rd of October 1963 raising objections to the recovery of the penalty under the surety bond. For appreciating the objections filed by Natnurarm it is necessary to give some details about the nature of the bond executed by the surety Nathuretm. On the top of this bond it is printed 'judicial Criminal Form No. 3'. Then it is said that it is a surety bond for the appearance of the accused under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The name of the Court as mentioned is D. M. Ganganagar-Title of the case is given as 'state v. Ram Pratap. In the body of the bond it is mentioned : 'i' Nathu Ram, stand as surety for Ram Pratap that he shall continue to attend the High Court, Jodhpur till the decision relating to the 'daryaft and tabqiqat' of the offence for which he has been charged. If any default is made then I do here by bond myself to forfeit to the above mentioned court the sum of Rs. 20,000/. (Rs. Twenty thousand ).

(2.) TWO contentions are raised by the Learned Counsel for the surety on the contents to this bond. The first is that this bond was for enquiry and trial of an offence with which Ram Pratap was charged and since neither any enquiry nor was any trial pending in the High Court, this bond is ineffective. The second contention is that the surety did not bind himself to forfeit to the Government the sum of Rs. 20,000/-, and as such, it was not a bond executed under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure the penalty whereof could be realised from him under Section 514 (2) Criminal P. C. These two are the contentions urged on the contents of the bond. Yet a third contention is urged that the notice issued to the surety was issued after the decision of the appeal and the surety was not bound to produce him or to pay Rs. 20,000/- after the appeal had been decided.

(3.) NOW we proceed to decide these contentions. There is little doubt that the bond was for the appearance of Ram Pratap in the High Court on the 26th of February 1962, or on such other date as the High Court may fix. The contention of the surety is that the bond was in connection with an enquiry or trial but there were no proceedings relating to enquiry and trial pending in the High Court, and as such, the bond was invalid. It is urged that the enquiry against Ram Pratap ended with his commitment for trial before the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar and the trial ended at the latest on the pronouncement of the judgment by the Sessions Judge and that the appeal is not a continuation of the trial. It is conceded that the word 'tahqiqat' used in bond is for trial.