PROHIT ANANDI PRASAD Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against an order of the learned Sessions Judge dismissing ah application in revision presented to him by the applicants against the order of the learned District Magistrate of Dehra Dun dated 2 July, 1946, which in its turn upheld the order of Mr. M. P. Tripathi, Sub-divisional Magistrate of Dehra Dun, dated 23 March 1946.

(2.) The facts appear to be as follows. Mahani Paras Ram is an influential person of Rishikesh. Prohit Paras Ram another gentleman, (not to be confused with Mahant Paras Ram), was prosecuted at the instance of Mahant Paras Ram through one Jagannath, probably his servant, under Section 107, Criminal P.C. While this case was proceeding Prohit Paras Ram was ordered by the Court So enter into a bond to keep the peace during the pendency of those proceedings with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 600 each This was done. On 23 March 1946, an incident was alleged to have happened in which Mahant Paras Ram was said to have been assaulted by Prohit Paras Ram. Thereupon an application was made to the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate that Prohit Paras Ram had forfeited the bond entered into by him and that action be taken against him and the sureties under Section 514, Criminal P.C. On that date two witnesses were examined behind the back of Prohit Paras Ram and the sureties by the learned Magistrate and he felt satisfied that the bond had been forfeited and issued an order to all the parties concerned to show cause why the amount of the bonds be not realised. When this notice was issued, cause-was shown by the parties concerned and evidence was taken by the learned Magistrate de novo. On behalf of the complainant several witnesses were examined including Mahant Paras Ram. Upon a consideration of the entire evidence the learned Magistrate confirmed his previous order and further directed that the amount of the bonds be realised in full.

(3.) Then one appeal was filed against the order dated, 23 March 1946, by which it was said that the bonds had been forfeited and notice was issued to the parties concerned to show cause why the amount of the bonds should not be realised. Another, appeal was filed against the final order passed by the learned Magistrate confirming his previous order of 23 March 1946, and ordering that the full amount of the bonds be realised. In the former appeal the point raised before the learned District Magistrate was that the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate had no power to forfeit the bond without first issuing a notice to the parties as to whether there was reason enough to hold that the bond had been forfeited or should be forfeited. The learned District Magistrate dismissed this appeal on the ground that it was still open to the parties to satisfy the Magistrate that the bond had in fact not been forfeited. He further held that no appeal lay from that order.