LAWS(PVC)-1909-8-88

HIRA LAL SAHU Vs. EMPEROR

Decided On August 05, 1909
HIRA LAL SAHU Appellant
V/S
EMPEROR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case a rule was issued calling upon the Magistrate; of the District to show cause why the order complained of in the petition should not be set aside or why in the alternative, a portion of the penalty should not be remitted on the grounds stated in the petition.

(2.) The applicant is stated in the petition to have stood surety for one Jodu Lal Sahu who may charged under Secs.193 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and, as such surety to have executed a bond for appearance of Jodu Lal before the Court of the Sessions Judge of Mozaffarpore on the 18 of May 1909 at 6 a.m. to answer the charge against him and in default the petitioner bound himself to pay the sum of Rs. 50,000. Jodu Lal did not attend on the 18 of May in accordance with the terms of the bond, and proceedings wore, therefore, initiated with a view to have the bond forfeited and the amount of the forfeited money levied. An order has been made by the Deputy Magistrate that the bond of the surety be forfeited and that the full penalty be realized.

(3.) An objection is taken before us that the Deputy Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make this order and a perusal of Section 514 shows that this contention is well-founded. That section in its opening clause deals, first of all, with bonds generally and then with a bond for appearance before a Court. So far as the bonds generally were concerned, there is a provision that action may be taken by the Court by which the bond has been taken or by the Court of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class. But in the case of a bond for appearance before a Court, the tribunal indicated is that Court and there is not other tribunal. Now, in this case, from the terms of the bond the appearance was to be before the Sessions Court and not before the Deputy Magistrate, and, therefore, it is clear that the Deputy Magistrate had no jurisdiction.