ANWAR AHMAD versus STATE OF U. P.

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 779 · Decided: 12-09-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
. 
B 
c 
• 
D 
E 
F 
·~. 
G 
+-
H 
779 
. ANWAR AHMAD 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
September 12, 1975 
[V. R KRISHNA IYER 
AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sectidns 514 and 523-Seizure of car 
suspected to have been stolen-Police entrusting the car with the owner ood 
getting personal bond exe'C'.uted .for Us production in court-Bond, if can be 
forfeited. 
The appellant bought a car from th• dealers on the basis of a hire-pun:hase 
agreement. He rued a report before the police alleging that Ran Singh and 
others had practised a fraud on hirg. and had taken away his car and had not 
returned the same. On 3·12-1969. the police during the course of investiga-
tion recovered the car and handed it over to the appellant on SUihtrdnama on 
his executing a personal bond whereby the appellant undertook to produce the 
car in the cou1t whenever necessary, and in the caoo of failure to do so. he 
bound himself to pay a penalty of Rs. 5000/-. By the time the matter came 
to the Court, two years had elapsed and on 14-9-1971, the munsiff magistrate, 
Meerut, called upon the appellant to produce the car, and as be was unable 
to do so. a notice was issued under section 514 of the 
Code of Criminal 
Procedure for forfeiture of the bond. 
After hearing the 
appellant, 
the 
magistrate ordered the fotfe.fture of the bond and directed the appellant to 
pay a penalty of Rs. 5000/-. He failed in his appeal and his revision petition 
to the High Court was alsoi dismissed. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, 
HELD : (i) A perusal of section 514 (I) of the Code of Criminal Proce-
dure, 1898 clearly shows that a Qond for production of the property seized 
by the police must be executed before the Court, although a bond for the 
appearance of any pei:son before the Court can be taken by the police unde:rr 
rection 170(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
This section also clearly 
Cnjoins that a bond can be forfeited only if it is executed before a Court 
or before a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class. 
In the 
present case, therefore, once th§ car was seized by the police, it was the 
duty of the· police under section 523 to rePort the matter to the magistrate 
and get an order from him regarding the custody of the car. 
This was not 
done.· Even the bond which was executed by the appellant, -was not before 
the Court or the magistrate but before the J:)Olice officer, and in these cir .. 
cumstances, therefore, the· aforesaid bond was not one as contemplated by 
section 514 and, therefore, could not be forleited. 
Rameshwar Bhartia v. The 
State of Assam, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 405, relied on. 
[781-FH, 782-A] 
(ii) Though the provisions ·of Regulation 165(ii) of the 
Government of 
Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations read with' sectiQn 423 of the Code undoubtedly 
authorizes the police to seize the property and to make a summary order of 
the custody of the property, neither section 523 nor rule 165 (ii) authorize 
the police officer to take a ·bond from the person to whom the property iS-
entrusted. 
[781-D-EJ 
Observation : Even in the new Criminal Procedure Code, 
there 
is 
no 
express provision which empowers the police to get a bond from the person to 
whom the property sei:red is entrusted. 
This may lead to practical difficulties, 
for instance in cases where a bulky property is seized and the magistrate is 
living at a great dista,nce, it would be difficult for a police officer to report 
to the magistrate with the property. 
The Government will be well-advised 
to make suitable amendments in the Code to fill up this serious lacuna by 
giving power to the police for taking the.bond in such circumstances. 
[782-E-FJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 128 
of 1975. 
780 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 1 s.c.R. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Jud~ent and Order dated the 
22nd November, 1974 ofl the Allahabad High Court in Criminal 
Revision No. 2475 of 1971. 
K. e. Agarwala and M. M. L. Srivastava, for the appellant. 
0. P. Rana, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAz;AL ALI J. 
This appeal by special leave involves a short point 
of law relating to the legal enforceability ·of a personal bond executed 
by the appellant before the police for the production of the car be-
longing to him, which was alleged to have been stolen. 
The facts 
leading to the appeal fall .within a. very narrow compass. 
The appellant appears to have bought a car N

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.