GANGARAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by Gangaram and thirty-three others against the order of the District Magistrate of Bhilwara, dated the 4th of February 1954.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to it are that 70 persons were challenged by the police in the Court of the Extra Magistrate, Jahajpur for offences under Sections 148, 447, 379 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code. On the 4th of June 1952, all of them failed to appear in the trial court and, therefore, their personal bonds were forfeited and the court directed notice to be issued to them under Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter they filed their reply in the court on 30th of June 1953. Some of them took the plea that they could not come to the court on account of two deaths in their village and they had to join the cremation ceremony. Others took the plea that they had to attend the court at Shahpura in another case and, therefore, they could not come. The Magistrate found that twelve of them were required to attend the court at Shahpura and, therefore, no penalty was imposed upon them. The remaining 58 were ordered to pay Rs. 200/- each. Being dissatisfied with that order, they went in appeal to the District Magistrate, Bhilwara, but they were unsuccessful and hence,. they have come to this Court.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has. urged that no notice was actually given to the petitioners although it was directed to be issued by the trial Court, that the provisions of Section 514, Cr. P. C. , were not complied with and the order of the trial court imposing the penalty is therefore incorrect. In support of his contention, he has referred to the case of - Poonam Chand v. The State' 1953 Raj LW 554 (A); and - 'narain v. The State' 1955 Raj LW 19 (B ). In the former case it was held that if an order of forfeiture is passed without any notice to the person whose bond is forfeited, it amounts to a failure of justice. It is further necessary that it should be clear on the face of the record that he was so called upon. . . Such a defect cannot be cured by Section 537, Cr. P. C. This view was followed in the latter case. The facts of both the said cases were however different because it appears that in neither of them the accused whose bonds were forfeited and on whom penalty was imposed, were called upon to pay the penalty or to show cause why it should not be paid. So far as I understand, the word 'notice' in this case was used in the sense of calling upon the defaulter to show cause because the word 'notice' does not appear in Section 514, Cr. P. C. , itself. Section 514, Cr. P. C. , does not provide that any particular kind of formal notice should be given to the person whose bond has been forfeited. Relevant, part of the section runs as follows: 514. (1) Whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which a bond under this Code has been taken, or of the Court of a Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class, Or, when the bond is for appearance before a Court, to the satisfaction of such Court, that such bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof, or to show cause why it should not be paid.