EMPEROR Vs. BALLABHDAS MOTIRAM GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the bond given by the accused for his appearance in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate has been forfeited by an order of the Eighth Presidency Magistrate, to whose Court the case had been transferred. By the bond the accused binds himself to attend in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate on February 29 next to answer to the charge and to continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the Court. He did attend on February 29, and he continued to attend the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate until April 20, when the case was transferred to the Court of the 8 Presidency Magistrate, and thereafter he continued to appear before the 8 Presidency Magistrate until December 5, when he made default.

(2.) The first question is whether the accused has broken the condition of the bond, and I am clearly of opinion that he has not. All that he has undertaken to do is to attend the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, and to continue so to attend, that is to attend the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, until otherwise directed by the Court. The Court may direct him to cease attendance in the Chief Presidency Magistrate's Court, but it cannot direct him to attend some other Court which he has not undertaken to attend. Therefore, on the construction of the bond, in my opinion, he has not committed a breach.

(3.) There is also a difficulty arising under Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides that 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 may take action. Here, the bond is for appearance before the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, and under the section it is that Court which has to be satisfied before the bond can be forfeited. It does not appear that the Chief Presidency Magistrate has considered the matter. I think on that further ground the Presidency Magistrate of the 8 Court had no jurisdiction to forfeit the bond.