RAMESH CHANDRA versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 1084 · Decided: 14-10-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1084 
RAMESH CHANDRA 
v.-
STATE OF U.P. 
October 14, 1971 
(A. N. RAY AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.] 
Surety Bond-To Produce truck "i11henever ordered by the court''-
Executed in one Sub-Divisional Magistrate's 
Court-Forfeited by an-
other Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court-Plea of jurisdiction cannot be 
raised for first .tin1e in the High Court-Plea one interlaced with question's 
of fact-Construction of bond. 
The appellant declared himself surety in the court of a Sub-Div1siona> 
Magistrate and bound himself to produce a truck "whenever ordered by 
the court" to produc1~ the same. 
He was given notice to produc\! the 
truck by another Sub-Divisional Magist'rate in the same district and when 
he failed to produce the same the Magistrate passed an order forfeitin.o 
the surety bond and directing the realisation of the amount covered by 
the bond as fine. 
In his revision application before the High Court the 
appellant took a plea that the bond could be forfeited only by the court 
in which it was executed. 
The High Court did not allow the plea to be 
raised on the ground that the plea was not raised either before the Magis-
trate or before the Sessions Jud2e. 
Dismissing the app,,al to this Court, 
HELD : (I) The High Court rightly refused the appellant permission 
to ulrge the ground as to want of jurisdiction. 
Such a plea of jurisdiction 
is interlaced with questions of fact. 
It may be that the case was trans-
ferred, or that a particular court was ·abolished, or that allocation ol busi-
ness was changed or redistributed. 
The records indicate many probabili· 
tics and that was why the High Court declined to go into the question. 
!1087 BJ 
(2) Even if the appellant were permitted to raise this question m th< 
present case without any question of fact and purely on the constiu...:tion 
of the bond. it would appear that the appellant bound himself to produce 
the truck whenever ordered by the court to produce the same. 
Time 
was no undertaking to produce the truck in 
a 
particular 
cour~. The 
undertaking was to the court of the Magistrate and the Magistrate exer-
cises jurisdiction in the whole district under _s. 12 of the Code of Cri1ninal 
Procedure. , The word 'court' in the bond in the present case m~ans the 
1-fagistrate's cou:rt which dealt with the case. 
Furthermore, ihc bonJ 
provided that in case of default the appellant bound himself to forfeit to 
the Government the amount covered by the bond. [1088 CJ 
Ballc.bhdas Motiram Gupta v. Emperor, A.LR. 1943 Born. 178. held 
inapplicable. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 239 
of 1968. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
May 17, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision 
No. 1130 of 1966. 
E. C. Agarwa/a, for the appellant. 
0. P. Rana, for the respondent. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
' 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
RAMESH CHANDRA V. U.P. STATE (Ray, J.) 
I 081> 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
Ray, J. 
This appeal is by special leave against the' judgment 
dated 17 May, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court. 
The order 
of the Allahabad High Court was passed on a revisiqn application 
of the appellallJ against the order dated 28 January, 1966 of the 
Civil and Sessions Judge, Agra rejecting the revision against the 
order of the Magistrate dated 5 June, 1965 forfeiting the surety 
bond of the appella.nt and directing the sum oi Rs. 20,000 be 
realised from the appellant. 
The bond came to be furnished by the appellant under these 
circumstances. 
One Kis!ian Lal Gupta made an application for 
obtaining custody of truck ~o. RJZ-1724 in the case of State v. 
Sua Lal under the Essential Commodities Act in the court of the 
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kiraoli Kheragarh. 
The truck had 
been seized by the police on the allegation that it was carrying 
essential commodities to a prohibited area. The truck wa.s in the 
custody of the police at Fatehpur Sikri Police Station. 
Oill 16 December, 1963 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Kiraoli, 
Kheragarh, Agra ordered delivery of the truck be given on fur-
nishing two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each with the personal bond 
of the like amount. 
The prosecution filed a revision against the 
order. 
The Additional District Magistrate, Kheragarh rejected 
the revision application on 1 January, 1964 with the observation 
that it was for the Magistrate to decide as to who was to be 
given temporary cmtody of the truck and the matter required 
clarification. 
The prosecution moved th

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