JALIL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the Magistrate says that in his opinion the sureties appear to be unfit. This is a case of sureties for good behaviour.

(2.) Section 122, Criminal Procedure Code, says that a Magistrate may refuse to accept any surety for good behaviour offered under this Chapter on the ground that, for reasons to be recorded by the Magistrate, such surety is an unfit person. The Magistrate, therefore, has to determine in each case whether a person offered as surety is a fit or unfit person and as regards this matter, the Legislature has given him a discretion. The Legislature has not particularised any kind of unfitness. It has left the matter to the discretions of the lower Court though this Court will in each case consider, according to its own circumstances, whether the order passed by the Magistrate is a reasonable order to make or not.

(3.) In my opinion this is not a case in which we should interfere. It has however, been suggested that we are bound to do so by virtue of two reported decisions which have been cited to us. The first is contained in Ram pershad V/s. The King-Emperor 6 C.W.N. 593 and the other in Abinash Malakar V/s. The Empress 4 C.W.N. 797. In my opinion, in all cases what we should first look to are the words of the Statute itself I doubt whether a reported decision upon a matter of the kind now before us is binding, unless possibly where the circumstances are in all respects the same as those referred to in the reported decisions which are relied upon as an authority.