- Bench: S J Imam, J Kapur
- Appellant: Ghulam Mehdi
- Respondent: State Of Rajasthan
Issue
Legality of the order forfeiting the bail bond given by the appellant for non-compliance of the procedure
Facts
• This bail bond was executed by three sureties, who all undertook to produce Salamat Ali whenever and wherever he was required and in default they were jointly and severally liable to pay which could be realized from their person and properties.
• The case against Salamat Ali was originally being tried in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate but was transferred to the Court of Extra Magistrate. Salamat Ali continued to appear in that Court but then he absented himself.
• Proceedings were then taken under Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Extra Magistrate. In the first instance one of the surety was given notice under Section 514 (1), Criminal Procedure Code, to show cause why the bond of Rs. 10,000 be not ordered to be paid and the amount realized from him.
• The surety appeared but showed no cause and therefore the amount was forfeited but nothing was recovered from him. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment in civil jail.
• Subsequently, the notice was issued to the appellant to show cause why his bond be not forfeited and amount not recovered from him. The Public Prosecutor made an application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who without notice to the appellant ordered his properties to be attached.
• The appellant thereupon filed an appeal under Section 515 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of the District Magistrate and raised various objections as to the legality of the order of forfeiture but the appeal was dismissed and he took a revision in the High Court and the High Court upheld the order of forfeiture and in regard to the notice under Section 514 (1) Criminal Procedure Code, it held that although no notice had been given, yet no useful purpose would have been served even if the notice had been given.
• There upon the appellant made an application under Article 134(1)(c) and raised the following two points on which the certificate was granted:--
(1) The bond was vague inasmuch as it was not specified as to in which Court and at what place the accused Salamat Ali was to be produced and
(2) no notice was served on the applicant under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal was allowed and the order of attachment was set aside.
Relevant Paragraphs
(1) The bond was vague inasmuch as it was not specified as to in which Court and at what place the accused Salamat Ali was to be produced and (2) no notice was served on the applicant under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It is not necessary to go into the first point as in our opinion unless notice is given to the surety under Section 514 (1) to show cause why the surety bond be not paid no proceedings for recovery under Section 514 can be taken. Section 514 (1) & (2) is as follows:
Section 514. (1) "Whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which a bond under this Code has been taken, or of the Court of a Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class, or, when the bond is for appearance before a Court, to the satisfaction of such Court, that such bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof, or to show cause why it should not be paid.
Section 514. (2) If sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same by issuing a warrant for the attachment and sale of the moveable property belonging to such person or his estate if he be dead." This provision shows that before a surety becomes liable to pay the amount of the bond forfeited it is necessary to give notice why the amount should not be paid and if he fails to show sufficient cause only then can the Court proceed to recover the money. In the present case the appellant was not called upon to show cause why the penalty should not be paid. Before a man can be penalised forms of law have to be observed and an opportunity has to be given to a surety to show cause why he should not be made to pay and as in this case that was not done, proceedings cannot be said to be in accordance with law and should therefore be quashed.
4. We are therefore of the opinion that the Magistrate could not proceed to attach the property of the appellant unless a proper notice was given to him and he was given an opportunity to show cause why he should not pay the amount of the bond.
To read the original copy of the judgement, Click here
