Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision Case No. 456, of 1950, decided on 11th January 1951.

Ss. 514, 526 and 528‑District Magistrate stayed further .Proceedings before Subordinate Magistrate‑Latter could not forfeit bond executed under S. 526 in respect of transfer application.

The petitioners filed a petition before the District Magistrate on 20th of May, 1950 and orders were actually passed on that petition on 22nd May, 1950 staying further proceedings. So, by ' 22nd May, 1950 the petitioners Pad actually taken steps in the matter of their petition for transfer of the case, and the Magist rate was in error when on the 22nd of May he forfeited their bail bonds.

K. H. Hasan, for Petitioners.

Nemo, for Opposite Party.

‑This rule must be made absolute. It was issued on the District Magistrate of Mymensingh to show cause why the order passed by Mr. S. U. Ahmed, Magistrate of 1st class, Tangail, on the 22nd of May, 1950, forfeiting certain bonds executed by the petitioners as a guarantee of their intention to move for a transfer under section 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code, should not be set aside.

The case against the petitioners under section 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code was proceeding in the Court of Mr. S. U. Ahmed and was at stage at which the defence witnesses were being examined. On the 25th of March, 1950 the defence asked for time to produce ‑the witnesses, who could not be brought to Court on that date. The Magistrate recorded in the order‑sheet that he allowed time for the first time only and would give no further time. The case, accordingly, was adjourned till 11th April, 1950. No defence witnesses were produced and the Magis trate, thinking that the defence were merely adopting dilatory tactics in order to put off the case until his transfer to the District of Rangpur could take effect, allowed the petitioners four hours time to get their lawyer and to take up the case. At that time a petition under section 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed, which effectively stayed the Magistrate's hand. While staying further progress in the case he called on 'the petitioners to execute bonds of Rs. 400 each under the terms of the section without noticing that he was requiring an illegal amount. There after on 1st May, 1950 to which date he had adjourned the case, the petitioners applied for further time in the matter of their petition under section 526, and the Magistrate granted them time till 22nd May, 1950 on 22nd May, 1950 having received no information as to the filing of any petition under section 526, the Magistrate forfeited the bail bond to the extent of Rs. 200 each,, and it is this order which is now under review.

The record of the case shows that the petitioners filed a petition before the District Magistrate on 20th of May, 1950 and orders were actually passed on that petition on 22nd May, 1950 staying further proceedings. So, by 22nd May; 1950 the petitioner had actually taken step in the matter of their petition for transfer of the case, and the Magistrate was in error when on the 22nd of May he forfeited their bails bonds.

The rule is accordingly made absolute. The order of forfeiture is set aside.

K. M. A./A. M.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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