Daya Ram and Another vs The State

D.B. Lal, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the District Magistrate, Solan agreeing in revision with the order of the Magistrate First Class, Arki, whereby the surety bonds of Daya Ram and Hari Krishan have been forfeited and they have been directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 500/- each, in default their property are to be attached and they may be detained in civil prison,

The facts giving rise to this revision are these. A case under Sections 447 and 380 I. P. Code was instituted and the Petitioner Daya Ram apprehended that he would be arrested for that offence. Accordingly on 11-9-1972 he appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Simla, and prayed for his release on bail. The learned Magistrate made his order on 11-9-1972 releasing on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond for appearance in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- accompanied with one surety bond in the like amount. A further direction was made that both Daya Ram and his surety should appear on 26-9-1972 before Magistrate first Class, Arki within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed. A letter dated 12-9-1972 was subsequently written by the Simla Magistrate to the Magistrate, first Class, Arki, and it was specified that the surety bond was accepted ensuring presence of the accused before that Court on 26-9-1972. On this date, however, neither the accused Daya Ram nor his surety Hari Krishan appeared. Accordingly u/s 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the Arki Magistrate forfeited the bonds and issued show-cause notice against Daya Ram and Hari Krishan for the penalty to be realised. The two Petitioners, namely, Daya Ram and Hari Krishan showed the cause, but nevertheless the Magistrate forfeited the two bonds to the extent of one-half and directed the Petitioners to pay the amount and failing that their property were to be attached.

Against that order, both Daya Ram and Hari Krishan came in revision before the District Magistrate, Solan. Their revision was dismissed and the order of the learned Magistrate was upheld. Against the order of the District Magistrate, the present revision is filed in the High Court.

The learned Counsel contested in the foremost that the order demanding the security, was without jurisdiction. In other words he contended that neither could Daya Ram apply to the Magistrate at Simla nor could that Magistrate grant bail as the offence was committed outside his jurisdiction. For this, the learned Counsel relied on Lal Bahadur Vs. Emperor, and State v. Sajjan Singh . In both t AIR 1953 Pepsu 146hese cases, it was held that u/s 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only that Magistrate could grant bail within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed. In these two cases, it was not considered as to whether a Magistrate to whom jurisdiction is conferred otherwise, by sending the warrant of arrest for execution and he makes any endorsement on such warrant for the arrest of the accused, even such a Magistrate cannot grant bail, although there are some provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure to that effect. Be it as it may, two cases referred to above did not consider the effect of Section 531 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Arki Magistrate forfeited the bonds and made an order for realization of penalty in connection with the proceeding of bail which took place before Simla Magistrate. Merely because that proceeding was taken before a wrong court, unless there was failure of justice, the order cannot be set aside. The Petitioners have failed to point out in what manner a failure of justice has occasioned and as such Section 531 (462 new) gives complete protection to the order of bail granted by the Magistrate at Simla.

It is abundantly clear that Daya Ram himself asked in that court to give him bail. He willingly gave the surety bond and even agreed that he would present himself before Arki Court on 26-9-1972. Now he has fallen back and has contended that he could not ask for bail by the Simla Magistrate.

It is manifest in the bail bond itself it was provided that Daya Ram would appear before Arki Court, for which a specific date was given to him. Thus the bond provided for the appearance at Arki and that Court could forfeit the bond as Daya Ram and Hari Krishan both failed to appear. It is then contended that Daya Ram was ultimately absolved of the two offences and perhaps it was informed by the Police that he was no longer needed and that was a sufficient cause for his absence. A perusal of the order of the learned Magistrate indicates that ultimately the Police Inspector gave a statement that Daya Ram was no longer required for the two offences. That was certainly a mitigating factor and may lead to further reduction of the amount. Nonetheless it does not absolve the Petitioner from paying the penalty. The learned Magistrate has discussed the evidence adduced by the Petitioners, and the statement given by the Police Inspector. This Court in revision will not take a different view than what has been taken by the two courts below. It cannot be stated that merely because the accused was ultimately absolved of the offences, his surety bonds no longer stood valid and could not be complied with.

Due compliance was made of Section 514 and it is clear from the order that the attachment and arrest of Daya Ram and Hari Krishan have to take place only if they do not pay the penalty.

In this view of the matter, I think the amount of bond may further be reduced in the case of each Daya Ram and Hari Krishan and that amount shall be payable by them. The order of the learned Magistrate is otherwise maintained. The revision is, therefore, dismissed with this modification that the amount of personal bond and the surety bond is reduced to Rs. 200/- for each bond both in case of Daya Ram and Hari Krishan.