LAL BAHADUR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision of Lal Bahadur Johri from an order passed by the District Magistrate of Budaun under S-514, Criminal P.C. THIS order was confirmed on appeal. It appears that on 14 April 1927, Lal Bahadur Johri against whom a warrant of arrest had been issued by the District Magistrate of Budaun appeared before a Magistrate of the First Class at Rai Bareilly and applied for bail. His application was granted by the Magistrate presumably under Section 85, Criminal P.C. upon Lal Bahadur Johri executing a personal recognizance for a sum of Rs. 3,000 for his attendance in the Court of the District Judge of Budaun within a certain time. In pursuance of the said order, Lal Bahadur Johri did not appear in the Court of the District Magistrate of Budaun and the result of it was that the bail bond which had been executed by Lal Bahadur Johri at Rai Bareilly on 14 April 1927, was declared to be forfeited to the Government. The learned District Magistrate took further proceedings under Section 514, Criminal P.C. and certain moveable properties belonging to Lal Bahadur Johri were attached and sold. Lal Bahadur Johri is aggrieved by this order and challenges the legality and propriety of the proceedings taken in the Court of the District Magistrate with regard to the sale of his moveables, consequent upon the forfeiture of his recognizance.

(2.) UPON a consideration of all the facts of the case we have come to the conclusion that the bail bond was executed by Lal Bahadur Johri in a Court which had no jurisdiction in law to obtain a personal recognizance from Lal Bahadur Johri and the bail bond in question was of no legal effect. The District Magistrate was therefore not competent under Section 514, Criminal P.C. to sell any portion of the moveable property of lal Bahadur Johri by reason of the latter not carrying out the order of the Magistrate of Rai Bareilly dated 14 April 1927. No warrant of arrest had been executed against Lal Bahadur Johri in the district of Rai Bareilly. As a matter of fact, no warrant of arrest had hitherto been executed against Lal Bahadur Johri under Section 85, Criminal P.C. The Magistrate of Rai Bareilly was not competent either to admit Lal Bahadur Johri to bail or to exact from him a bail bond. Where a Magistrate without jurisdiction obtains a bail bond from an accused person for his appearance before another Court outside his jurisdiction and it transpires that the Magistrate was not competent either to admit the accused to bail or to secure a bail bond from him, the bail bond or personal recognizance of the accused is a nullity. In the above view, we allow the application, set aside the order of the District Magistrate forfeiting the bail bond and directing that the moveable property of Lal Bahadur Johri be sold for non-compliance of the order of the Magistrate of Rai Bareilly. The order of the District Magistrate of Rai Bareilly was clearly contrary to law.