Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 42 of 1952, decided on 12th May, 1952, against the order of District Magistrate, Mirpur, dated the 22nd September, 1951.

S. 514‑Bond forfei ted must have been taken under provisions of Cr‑P.C.‑If proceedings not of criminal nature, bond cannot be forfeited -Bond taken in proceedings of recovery of non‑Muslim abducted woman‑Bond filed before Deputy Commissioner cannot be forfeited by Additional District Magistrate‑Opportunity not given to surety to prove allegations‑Forfeiture bad.

For an order of forfeiture under section 514 Criminal P. C. it is necessary that the bail bond should be taken in proceed ings of criminal nature falling under one of the sections of the Criminal P. C. In this case, the proceedings in which Mst. Urmala Kamari was recovered and handed over to the peti tioner were not at all of criminal nature. The bail bona given by the petitioner for the production of Mst. Urmala Kamari cannot therefore be said to have been given before a Judicial Court, whose action is regulated by the Criminal P. C.

The bail bond was filed before the Deputy Commissioner and the order of its forfeiture could only be given by this officer and not by the Additional District Magistrate.

The order directing forfeiture without giving the peti tioner an opportunity of proving his allegations was bad.

Mumtaz Muhammad for Petitioner.

Muhammad Sharif, Government Advocate for Govern ment.

‑The applicant in revision went bail to the amount of Rs. 5 000 for tile production or a non‑Muslim abducted girl named Mst. Urmai; Kamari before the Deputy Commissioner Mirpur, whenever her presence was considered necessary. Mst. Urmala Kamari had been recovered and put in Abducted Women's Camp and was handed over to the petitioner n his filing a bail bond. After some time, the petitioner was required to produce Mst. Urmala Kamari in terms of the bond and failed to do so. The result was that he was served with a notice under section 514, Criminal P. C., when he informed the Deputy Commissioner through a peti tion that she was ill and unable to appear in response to the notice. The petitioner finally appeared on 16th June, 1951 before the Additional District Magistrate and stated that he was unable to produce Mst. Urmala Kamari on account of the latter being ill. The Additional District Magistrate did not believe the explanation of the petitioner and ordered the forfeiture of the bond to the extent of Rs. 1,000. On appeal the penalty was reduced to Rs. 200 by the District Magistrate on 22nd September, 1951, and against this order the petitioner filed the present petition in revision.

It is now contended that the order of forfeiture of the bond was bad because the bond was filed before the Deputy. Commissioner and the Additional District Magistrate could not pass order for its forfeiture. It is further contended that there was sufficient reason for non‑production of Mst. Urmala Kamari and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to produce evidence in support of the explanation given by him It is lastly contended that the proceedings in compliance of which the bail bond was filed were of executive nature and no action could be taken against the petitioner for the forfeiture of the bond under the provisions of the Criminal P. C.

All the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner hold good. For an order of forfeiture under section 514, Criminal P, C., it is necessary that the bail bond should be taken in the proceedings of criminal nature falling under one of the sections of the Criminal P. C. In this case, the pro ceedings in which Mst. Urmala Kamari was recovered and handed over to the petitioner were not at all of criminal nature. The bail bond given by the petitioner for the pro duction of Mst. Urmala Kamari cannot, therefore, be said to have been given before a judicial Court, whose action is regulated by the Criminal P. C. The bail bond was filed before the Deputy Commissioner and the order of its forfeiture could only be given by this Officer and not by the Additional District Magistrate. The petitioner was not given any opportunity for showing cause by producing evidence as to why he had failed to produce Mst. Urmala Kamari. The order directing forfeiture without giving the petitioner an opportunity of proving his allegations was bad under section 514, Criminal P. C., which runs as follows :‑

"Whenever it is proved‑to the satisfaction of the Court by which a bond under this Code has been taken, or when the bond is for appearance before a Court, to the satisfaction of such Court, that such bond has been fortified, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof, or to show cause why it should not be paid."

In view of the petition put in it was clearly the duty of the Magistrate to examine the petitioner as to the reason put forward for the non‑appearance of Mst. Urmala Kamari but the Magistrate did not do so. The Magistrate not having acted as required by section 514, Cr. P. C., the order passed by him as to the forfeiture of the bond cannot therefore be said to be a proper order.

For the above reasons, I accept the petition, set aside the order directing the forfeiture of the bond and order refund of the amount if any paid, to the petitioner.

A. H.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.