LexTHE STATE OF BIHAR versus M. HOMI AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] 1955 because obviously section 25-A is only lln enabling Shiromani section providing a cheap remedy by way of a suit P~~t:;:t:,ik before the Tribunal itself. We are clearly of the commime opinion that the· present suit under section 25-A is L S d v. R lb' barred by· limitation and on this ground the appeal t. ar ar ag 1 1r f .. 1 Singh and othf'rS must a1 . Jagannadlradas J. 1955 March 24 The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. THE ST A TE OF BJHAR v. M. HOMJ AND ANOTHER [VIVIAN BOSE, .TAGANNADHADAS and SINHA, .T.T.J Surety bond-Stipulations of a penal nature-Whether should be construed strictly. In a s11rety bond the sureties bound themselves for payment of Rs .. 50,000 "only in case Mr. Ali Khan fails . . . to surrender to the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum within three days of the receipt of the notice of the order or judgment of the Judicial Com- mittee if by the said order or judgment the sentence is upheld either partly or wholly". As a result of the constitutional changes the jurisdiction of the Privy Council came to be transferred to the Federal Court, and eventually Ali Khan's appeal to the Privy Coun- cil was heard and dismissed by the Federal Court. Thereupon the Deputy Commissioner issued notice to the sureties to produce Aii Khan within three· days. Held, that the proceedings taken agaiqst the sureties \Vere en- tirely .misconceived as the penalty stipulated had not been incurred, in ,·iew of the terms of the bond set out above. Provisions in a surety bond which are penal in nature mtist be very strictly construed and there is no room for the application of a legal fiction that the judgment of the Federal Court must be deemed to be the judgment or order contemplated by the parties to the surety bond. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Ap- peal No. 62 of 1953. Appeal under. Article l 34(])(c) of the Constitu- tion from the Judgement and Order dated the 27th March 1953 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Revision No. 1290 of 1951 <•ri5ing out of • 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COlJRT REPORTS 79 the Judgment and Order dated the 12th November JY5S, 1951 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Singhbhum iriTJze State of Bi/tar Criminal Revision No. 16 of 1951. M. 'f.iomi . A1ahabir Prasad, Advocate-General for the State of Bihar (Shyam Nandan Prasad and M. M. Sinha, with him), for the appellant. S. N. Mukherji, for the respondent. 1955. March 24. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J.-In this appeal we did not think it neces- sary to hear the counsel for the respondents on the merits of the decision appealed from in the view we have taken, as will presently appear, of the terms of the surety bond which was being sought to be en- forced against the sureties, the respondents in this Court. The surety bond in question was taken in circumstances which clearly appear from the follow- ing resolution of the Government of Bihar dated the J 7th October 1946:- "Whereas one Maulavi A. Ali Khan, who was con- victed under section 120-B read with section 420, Indian Penal Code by the First Special Tribunal, Cal- cutta and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprison- ment and a fine of rupees o"ne lac which conviction and sentence have been subsequently upheid by the Patna High Court, has submitted to the Provincial Government a petition praying for suspension of his sentence in order to enable him to prefer an appeal al!ainst the said conviction and sentence to the Judi- cial Committee of the Privy Council. And whereas the Provincial Government have granted the prayer of the petitioner subject to the conditions hereinafter specified which the petitioner has accepted: Now, therefore. the Governor of Bihar herebv orders that the execution of the aforesaid sentence of Maulavi A. Ali Khan be suspended pending the hear- in~ of the proposed appeal to the .Tndicial Committee of the Privy Council on his furnishing securitv worth Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each to the and another 80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] 1955 satisfaction of either the Sub-Divisional Ofi1cer, The s1;;;e-;,f Bihurlamshedpur or the Deputy Commissioner of Singh- M. ~omi bhum and undertaking (l) to furnish proof by the 1st and a11ather December, 1946 of his having taken all necessary Si1tha J. steps for the filing of the appeal and also (2) to sur- render to the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.