MON MOHAN CHAKRAVARTI Vs. KING-EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued by two of my learned brothers, calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the order passed should not be set aside on the first and second grounds stated in the petition.

(2.) The order referred to was dated the 9 April 1924, and was made by the learned Sessions Judge of Dacca, by which he forfeited the bail bond of the two petitioners, and directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to levy the amount due from the two sureties.

(3.) It appears that, on the 26 September 1923, one Ramizuddi was ordered by the Sub- Divisional Officer of Munshiganj to execute a security bond of Rs. 300 with two sureties of Rs. 300 each, to be of good behaviour for a period of two years in a proceeding under Section 110, Civil P.C. The record was forwarded to the learned Sessions Judge; and, in the meantime the Sub-Divisional Officer ordered that Ramizuddi should be detained in prison. On 4th October 1923, an application was made to the learned Judge for the release of Ramizuddi on bail : and, on 8 October 1923, the learned Judge made an order releasing Bamizuddi on his own bail of Rs. 200 with two sureties of Rs. 200 each; the surety bond was signed by the two petitioners who are mukhtears. The form of the bond which was executed was as follows: We the undersigned sureties do hereby execute the surety bond and promise that we shall produce the accused in the above-mentioned case at the Sessions Court at Dacca whenever called upon to do so; and in default, we bind ourselves to forfeit to His Majesty the King Emperor the sum of two hundred rupees only.