PANDURANG PUNDLIK SHANBHAG Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by accused 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 against the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sirsi Division, Kanara, confirmed in appeal by the District Magistrate, forfeiting the recognizance bonds of the petitioners.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows: A complaint was filed against the petitioners and others Under Section 504, I.P.C., at Honavar by the toddy licensee of that place in the Court of the Town Magistrate of Honavar on 18 July 1930. Process was issued. They were arrested and brought before the Magistrate and were released on bail. On 22 July, the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sirsi Division, transferred the case to his own file, purporting apparently to follow the general directions of the District Magistrate in regard to a certain class of cases. On 25th July, although the accused were released on bail, they applied Under Section 526, Criminal P.C., for an adjournment on the ground that they wished to move the High Court for a transfer. The learned Magistrate rejected the application and moved his camp on 26 July to Bhatkal, where the accused followed. The Honavar sureties declined to continue, and the accused were allowed to remain out on bail on their own personal bonds. The complainant however was net present at Bhatkal. On 28 July the Magistrate moved his camp from Bhatkal to the village named Sampkhed, which appears from the map to be about forty miles distant from Bhatkal, and on 30 July he moved his camp to Siddapur. On this day the accused were present. But the complainant was absent, nor apparently were any of the witnesses present. On 31 July the accused complained of a serious inconvenience by each change of camps, particularly in the rainy season, and asked that their recognizance bonds should be cancelled and that they should be taken into custody rather then have to follow the Magistrate about on their own recognizance as they hitherto had done. That application was refused by the Magistrate. The accused then applied again Under Section 526(8) to adjourn the case on the ground that they wished to move the High Court for transfer of the case. That application was rejected, and they were ordered to re appear on 1st August. They failed to do so. In fact they actually did apply to this Court for a transfer. On their failing to appear at the camp at Siddapur, the Sub divisional Magistrate forfeited their recognizance bonds. Their appeals were rejected by the District Magistrate, and they now apply in revision.

(3.) Three points are taken for the petitioners: firstly, that the terms of Section 526(8) are imperative and that the Magistrate was bound to adjourn the proceedings in his Court, and all subsequent proceedings including the order to appear on 1 August, and the forfeiture of the recognizance bonds was illegal and void. Secondly, the accused had till then followed the Magistrate about and had complied with the requirements of the bonds, and they had to leave the Magistrate for the purpose of their application for transfer to this Court in Bombay. Thirdly, the Magistrate was bound in any case to grant their request to set aside their recognizance bonds and to take them into custody in a warrant case Under Section 504, I.P.C.