GANGA SAHAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by Ganga Sahai whose surety bond has been declared forfeit by the Second Assistant City Magistrate of Jaipur by order dated the 1st of February. 1954. An appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur on the 21st July, 1955.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that one Megha Ram was being prosecuted in the court of the Assistant City Magistrate of Jaipur and Ganga Sahai stood surety for him. THE relevant portion of the surety bond is as follows : - "i, Ganga Sahai, do hereby stand surety for Megha Ram and agree that the said Megha Ram will appear to answer the charge against him on the 13th of August, 1953, or on subsequent dates or when called upon in the court of the Second Assistant City Magistrate of such court in which the case may be transferred and if Megha Ram commits default the Government will be entitled to recover Rs. 2,500/- from me. Dated 12th August, 1953. " Megha Ram committed default in appearance on the 29th October, 1953, whereupon after notice to the surety his bond was declared forfeit. It has been contended by the learned counsel for Ganga Sahai that the bond does not contain the place of the situation of the court and, therefore, it is vague and cannot be enforced. Reliance was placed on Emperor vs. Chintaram (1 ). Allah Bux vs. THE State (2) and Chiranjilal vs. THE State (3 ). In the Nagpur case the bond was executed in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jangir, with an undertaking that the accused will appear in the court at Bilaspur. THE name of the court was not mentioned and the court held the bond to be vague and unenforceable. In the next case the time, place and the name of the court were all blank and it was held by me that the bond was not enforceable. In the last case the terms of the bond were not mentioned but it was held that the name of the place not having been mentioned in the bond it was not enforceable. In the present case while the court is mentioned as that of the Second Assistant City Magistrate the name of the town is not mentioned. Learned Assistant Government Advocate contends that this bond was submitted to the court of the Assistant City Magistrate, Jaipur, and therefore, the court of the Second Assistant City Magistrate mentioned in the bond should be the court situated at Jaipur. THE bond, however, does not show in which court it was submitted. While the bond is dated the place where it was executed is also not mentioned. On the back of the bond there is an order dated the 17th August, 1953. that it should remain on record but it is not signed by any person, so that taking every word of the bond in consideration there is still the omission of the name of the town where the court of the Second Assistant City Magistrate may be situated in which the accused was to appear and in default whereof Ganga Sahai surety had undertaken to become liable. THE bond is vague and cannot, therefore, be enforced. Before parting with this case attention of the District Magistrates is drawn to the fact that it is high time that some action should be taken to ensure proper execution of the bonds by the accused and then sureties.