Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision Petition No. 171 of 1958, decided on 2nd May 1958, under section 18 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act (XIV of 1951).

Punjab Control of Goondas Act (XIV of 1931), Ss. 9 & l6(S) Tribunal may cancel bond and place person proceeded against under arrest Procedure prescribed by S. 16 (S) not the only procedure to be followed on forfeiture.

The petitioner was being proceeded against under the Punjab Control of Goondas Act (XIV of 1951). When he first appeared before the Tribunal under section 9 of the Act, he was asked to execute a bond for his appearance and, perhaps for good behaviour, until the conclusion of the inquiry. Subsequently, there came a police report that the petitioner was in the habit of getting drunk and assaulting women in that condition, and in consequence of that report the District Tribunal cancelled his bond and placed him under arrest.

It was contended that the Tribunal having taken a bond from the petitioner under section 9, if there is reason to think that the bond has been forfeited through the petitioner's mis behaviour, the only course open for the Tribunal is to resort to the provisions of section 514, Criminal P. C., first satisfying itself by recording evidence that the bond has been forfeited, then recording the ground of forfeiture and then calling upon the petitioner to pay the penalty.

Held, that section 514, Criminal Procedure Code does not necessarily provide the only procedure which should be adopted on the forfeiture of a bond. It is not a simple procedure and will not be suitable should the Tribunal find it necessary during the inquiry to put the person complained of under immediate arrest.

Further, that it would be unreasonable to interpret the second part of section 9 to mean that although the Tribunal had power to detain a person in custody if there was any apprehension that he will not appear at the next date; it had no power to order such detention in the case of an apprehension that he will continue to misbehave during the inquiry. There would thus be no remedy left with the Tribunal against misbehaviour during the inquiry even though it knew that the execution of a bond for good behaviour would not be effective.

If then there is a power to detain when the person complained of first appears before the Tribunal, it is unreasonable to think that there is no such power at a later stage and the only course left is to resort to the proceedings relating to forfeiture although they may not be effective. An authority which can pass an order can also revoke it and since the language of section 9 does not prohibit such revocation, it is, permissible.

Therefore when the Tribunal is of opinion that the petitioner is likely to misbehave during the inquiry, it can cancel the bail bond.

Syed Mahmud Shah for Petitioner.

M. Anwar, A. A. G. for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 28th April 1958.

‑Muhammad Nazir of Lyallpur is under trial before the District Tribunal under the Control of Goondas Act, 1951. When he first appeared before the Tribunal under section 9 of the Act, he was asked to execute a bond for his appearance and, perhaps for' good behaviour, until the conclusion of the inquiry. Subsequently, there came a police report that the petitioner was in the habit of getting drunk and assaulting women in that condition, and in consequence of that report the District Tribunal cancelled his bond and placed him under arrest by an order dated the 27th January 1958. He brought a revision petition in the High Court and Changez, J., released him on the 15th April 1958, referring the case to a Division Bench.

2. The question is whether the Tribunal has power to cancel the bond of the person complained of after he has been released.

3. Section 9 of the Act is as follows :‑

"9. Appearance before a Tribunal.‑(1) When the person com plained of appears before it, the Tribunal may take a bond from him with or without sureties for his appearance during enquiry or when called upon, as the case may be, and may also having regard to the nature of the information laid against him. require him to furnish a bond, with one or more sureties, in such sum as the Tribunal may think fit, to be of good behaviour, until the conclusion of the enquiry, and may direct that he ma,, be detained in custody until such bond is executed, or in default of execution, until the enquiry is concluded.

(2) The Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded, instead of taking a bond for the appearance of the person complained of, order his detention in such custody as may be prescribed by the Government by a general or special order till the conclusion of the enquiry by it."

4. Under, section 16, subsection (5), the provisions of section 514, Criminal Procedure Code, become applicable in respect of the forfeiture of bonds furnished under the Control of Goondas Act. Section 514 of the Code provides that when it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a bond has been forfeited, the Court may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof. It is now argued that the Tribunal having taken a bond from the petitioner under section 9. if there is reason to think that the bond has been forfeited through the petitioner's misbehaviour, the only course open for the Tribunal is to resort to the provisions of section 514 of the Code, first satisfying itself by recording evidence that the bond has been forfeited, then recording the ground of forfeiture and then calling upon the petitioner to pay the penalty. We think. that section 514 does not necessarily provide the only procedure which should be adopted on the forfeiture of a bond. It is not a simple procedure and will not be suitable should the Tribunal find it necessary during the inquiry to put the person complained of under immediate arrest.

5. The first part of section 9 makes it discretionary for the Tribunal to take a bond or not to take it and this bond is primarily for the appearance of the person complained against. In addition, if the nature of the information laid against him so requires, he may be asked to furnish a bond for good behaviour. If he does not furnish either of these two bonds, he will be detained in custody until such bond is executed or until the inquiry is concluded. The second part of section 9 contemplates a situation where from the very inception of the case the Tribunal considers it proper to keep the person complained of under detention. The words "instead of taking a bond for the appearance of the person complained of, order his detention" are somewhat mislead ing, as they seem to indicate that the reasons which would impel the Tribunal‑ to order detention have reference only to the appearance of the person complained of. In. other words, the Tribunal orders detention because it thinks that the appearance of the aforesaid person cannot be secured merely by requiring him. to execute a bond. It is obvious, however, that if detention is ordered from .the very start, the question of requiring a bond for good behaviour will not arise. It is for that reasons that no mention of a bond for good behaviour was found necessary in a case where the Tribunal thought it fit to order detention. In fact any mention of such words would have been superfluous.

Further, it would be unreasonable to interpret the second part of section 9 to mean that although the Tribunal had power to detain a person in custody if there was any apprehension that the will not appear at the next date, it had no power to order such detention in the case of an apprehension that he will continued to misbehave during the inquiry. There would thus be no remedy left with the Tribunal against misbehaviour during the inquiry, even though it knew that the execution of a bond for good behaviour would not be effective.

6. If then there is a power to detain when the person com plained of first appears before the Tribunal, it is unreasonable to think that there is no such power at a later stage and that the only course left is to resort to the proceedings relating to forfeiture although they may not be effective. An authority which can pass an order can also revoke it and since the language of section 9 does not prohibit such revocation, it is, in our opinion, permissible.

7. In this view of the case, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 18 of the Act is not attracted, because the Tribunal has exercised a jurisdiction which was vested in it by law. We are not, however, taking the matter on the revisional jurisdiction ;. though in the writ jurisdiction also, if the petitioner had not already been released, we might not have directed his release. We should make it clear, however, that if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner is likely to misbehave during the C inquiry, it can cancel the bail bond. For that reason it is necessary that the inquiry should be completed with all possible speed.

A.H. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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