LexTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus MOHAMMED SAYEED
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1957 March 26. SUPREME COURT REPORTS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. MOHAMMED SA YEED (BHAGWATI, JAFER IMAM and A.K. SARKAR JJ.) Surety bond--Undertaking to forfeit sum of monty to King Emperor Qaisar-e-Hind on Jaiture to produce accused-Whether bond legal and er.Jorceable-Code of Criminal Procedure, ss. 499, 514, and 555-Adaptation ef Laws Order, 1950, cl. 4- ln 1953 the respondent executed a surety bond undertaking to produce the accused before the ~1agistru.te and to forfeit Rs. 500 to King Emperor Qaisar-e-Hind as penalty if he failed to do so. Upon his failure to produce the acc;used, the !vfagistrate forfeited the bond to the extent of Rs. 300. The contenlion of the respondent \Vas that the bond not being in favour of the Government, could not be forfeited. Held, that the bond \Vas a bond unknovvn to the law of the Republic of India under the Code of Criminal Procedure at the time of its execution and could not be forfeited. The respondent did not execute a bond by which he bound himself to forfeit the said sum either to the Government of the Union of India or that of the State of Uttar Pradesh. To be a valid bond, the under- taking should have been to forfeit to the Government and not to the King Emperor. The words King Emperor Qaisar-e-Hind in the bond execut~d by the respondent could not be read, by \'irtue of cl. 4 of the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, to mean Goverrunent. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1955. Appeal under Arti<;le 134(1) (c) of the Constitution of India from the judgment and order dated March 11, 1955, of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) at Lucknow in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 1954 arising out of the judgment and order dated February 21, 1954, of the Sessions Judge at Gonda in Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 1953. G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the appellant. 1957'. March 26. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by IMAM J.-This is an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the decision of the Allahabad High Court on a certificate granted by that Court that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS The undisputea facts are that one Mohammad Yasin was prosecuted under s. 379, Indian Penal Code. He was released on bail. The respondent along with o;-ie Ram Narain stood surety for him, having executed surety bonds under s. 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, undertaking to produce the accused Yasin before the Court to answer the charge and to forfeit Rs. 500 each to King Emperor Qaiser-e-Hind as a penalty if they failed to do so. Yasin absconded. All attempts to secure his presence before the Court were of no avail. Consequently notices were issued under s. 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the sureties to show cause why their bonds should not be forfeited. The Magistrate, after giving the matter his considera- tion, ordered their bonds to be forfeited to the extent of Rs. 300 each. The respondent appealed to the Sessions Judge of Gonda who dismissed his appeal. Dissatisfied with the orders of the :Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, the respondent filed a criminal revi- sion in the High Court and Mulla J. allowerl his application and set aside the order of the Magistrate forfeiting the bond executed by him. At the request of the Government Advocate the learned Judge grant- ed the requisite certificate by virtue of which the present appeal is before use. The only question for consideration is whether the bond executed by the respondent was one under the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore capable of being forfeited in accordance with the provisions of s. 514, Criminal Procedure Code. Section 499 of the Code requires that before any person is released on bail or; released on his own bond, a bond for such sum of money as the police officer or Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient shall be executed by such person, and, when he is released on bail, by one or more sufficient sureties conditioned that such person shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond, and shall continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the police officer or Court, as the case may be. In Schedule V of the Code of Criminal Procedure various forms are set out and s. 555 of the Code provides that subject to the power conferred by s. 554 and by 1957 The Stat• <f Uttar Praduh v. Mohammed Say<ed Imam j
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.