Find a Lawyer

Criminal Reference No. 11 of 1974, decided on 16th June 1975.

----S. 514‑Bond, forfeiture of‑Trial Court imposing fine on surety for failure of accused to appear in Court‑Court neither declaring forfeiture of bond nor recording grounds for finding forfeiture justified before issuing notice to surety nor making any enquiry to ascertain whether absence of accused was deliberate or beyond his control Order imposing penalty, held, patently illegal‑Order quashed, in circumstances.‑[Bond].

1968 P Cr. L J 782 and P L D 1965 Kar. 516 rel.

Usman Ghani, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.

Nooruddin N. Ramzan for Respondent.

Date of hearing 16th June 1975.

This is a reference made by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge Hyderabad, recommending that the order dated 17‑4‑1970 passed by the City Magistrate, Hyderabad as well as order dated 18‑5‑1970 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Hyderabad may be quashed.

2. The facts forming the background of this reference are that the applicant stood surety in a sum of Rs. 10,000 for the appearance of one Masood Noorani against whom a case under section 107, Cr. P. C. was pending trial in the Court of City Magistrate, Hyderabad. Masood Noorani failed to attend the trial Court on 28‑3‑1970, hence a show‑cause notice was issued to the applicant calling upon him to explain as to why the amount of the bond submitted by him should not be forfeited. This notice was replied on 17‑4‑1970 but the learned Magistrate did not feel satisfied with his explanation and imposed a penalty of Rs. 500 on the applicant. It was against the imposition of this penalty that the applicant filed an appeal to the Additional Deputy Commissioner and A. D. M., Hyderabad, under section 515, Cr. P. C. who rejected the same and upheld the orders of the trial Court. The Applicant next moved the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad who has made the present reference.

3. The learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad has made this recommendation on the appreciation of fact that the Medical Certificate produced in respect of Masood Noorani's absence on 28‑3‑1970 was not taken into consideration, no enquiry was made to ascertain as to whether the absence of Masood Noorani on 28‑3‑1970 was due to circumstances beyond his control or he had actually absconded, and that there appeared to be an interpolation so as to make the bail bonds which were in fact executed for a sum of Rs. 10,000 to appear for a sum of Rs. 10,000.

The law points raised before him were that the Enquiry Magistrate did not record any grounds justifying the passing of the impugned order which was against the law laid down in the case reported in 1968 P Cr. L J 782 wherein it was held that in the event of failure to record the grounds justifying the order of the forfeiture of bond of the surety the forfeiture was illegal. He further relied on the case reported in P L D 1965 Kar. 516 and was of the opinion that the impugned orders were also illegal because the Court below did not first declare the forfeiture of the bond or recorded any grounds for such a finding before issuing notice to the surety.

4. I have examined the case and heard the parties. Admittedly, in this case no enquiry was made to ascertain as to whether the absence of Masood Noorani on 28‑3‑1970 was due to circumstances beyond his control or he had actually absconded to avoid appearance before the Court. In the absence of such an enquiry the order imposing the penalty is patently illegal It is also manifest from the record that the Court did not first declare the forfeiture of the bond nor recorded the grounds for finding that forfeiture of bonds wall justified under law before issuing notice to the surety. The order whereby penalty was imposed is therefore, illegal on this score as well.

5. The learned Additional District Magistrate, while deciding the appeal, did not consider the points mentioned above. He also failed to give a finding on the allegation that there were interpolations and additions in the original bail bonds and the amount of Rs. 1,000 which was originally the amount of the bail bonds was converted to Rs. 10,000. The lower appellate Court therefore, absolutely felled to discharge its bounden duty of deciding the points raised before it which were very material for the purposes of the decision of the case.

6. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General appearing for the State has conceded that the order of City Magistrate, Hyderabad who forfeited the bonds as well as the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Hyderabad who heard the appeal was illegal.

7. For the foregoing reasons I quash the orders dated 17‑4‑1970 passed by the City Magistrate, Hyderabad as well as order dated 18‑5‑1970, passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Hyderabad and allow the reference. In case the amount of penalty has been deposited by the applicant in the Court the same may be refunded to him.

Reference allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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