TEJASINGH Vs. JANWATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by Tejasingh against an order of the District Magistrate, Jalore, dated the 26-11-1954, forfeiting his surety bond under Section 514 Cr. P. C. , and arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) A report was made by Teekma against one Janwata in connection with the theft of the former's camel at the police station Sanchore During the course of investigation, the investigating officer made over the camel which had been recovered from the possession of Janwata to the petitioner Tejasingh on the latter's executing a bond in favour of the police officer that he would produce the camel before the police or the court whenever called upon to do so and that in default he would pay a sum of Rs. 500/ -. This bond was executed on the 18-11-1952. Janwata was challaned in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Jalore, in due course and the case was thereafter transferred to the court of the Extra First Class Magistrate Sanchore. By his judgment dated the 31-1-1954, Janwata was acquitted. Thereupon he applied to the Magistrate for restoration of the camel to him. The petitioner Tejasingh was called upon to produce the camel. The latter failed to comply with the order. Consequently the Magistrate forfeited his surety bond and directed him to pay the sum of Rs. 500/stipulated in the bond. The petitioner raised the principal contention that the forfeiture of the bond was illegal as he had not executed any bond in favour of the Court and, therefore, he could not, in Jaw, be called upon to any the penalty under Section 514 Cr. P, C. He also staled that the camel had been made over to the complainant Teekma and that it had been recently lost from his custody and efforts were being made to find it : out. The First Class Extra Magistrate, Sanchore, hold that Tejasingh was bound to produce the camel and that in default he must deposit the sum of Rs. 500/ -. Then the petitioner went in appeal to the District Magistrate who maintained the order of the Magistrate. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) THE main point for determination in this revision is whether the order of forfeiture, passed by the courts below, of the surety bond executed by the petitioner in this case is correct. The contention is-that the petitioner had never executed any bond in favour of the court and, therefore, there was no bond which the court could forfeit within the meaning of Section 514 Cr. P. C. The determination of this question depends upon Section 514, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: