Skip to content


R.R. Chari Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1948All238
AppellantR.R. Chari
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
- - the actual order of the leaned magistrate may well be put down here because there is some dispute as to whether there was an offer of cash security by the applicant or whether there was a demand of it by the magistrate. 25.000 and he prays that two personal and reliable sureties of rs. , makes it perfectly clear that what that section contemplates is the furnishing of a personal bond by the accused person and a bond by one or more sufficient sureties. the accused as well as the sureties have, therefore, to execute only bonds which are sufficient in the mind of the magistrate for the amount which he might have fixed. , and the demand of cash security in this case was clearly illegal......after referring to that case said that, under those circumstances, he was bound to order that cash security should be furnished. the actual order of the leaned magistrate may well be put down here because there is some dispute as to whether there was an offer of cash security by the applicant or whether there was a demand of it by the magistrate. the relevant portion of the order reads as follows:under these circumstances, i am bound to order that cash security be furnished. i am informed by the counsel for the accused that he will furnish cash security to the extent of rs. 25.000 and he prays that two personal and reliable sureties of rs. 25,000 and 19.000 more be accepted. i shall pass further orders on 112-1947 when cash security is furnished.4. the contention on behalf of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Wanchoo, J.

1. This is an application by R.R. Chari for reduction of the amount of bail on which he has been released. It appears that the applicant was wanted in connection with certain offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code said to have been committed by him while he was posted on Government service in Kanpur. He was arrested in Madras on 28-10-1947 in pursuance of a bailable warrant issued by the District Magistrate of Kanpur. The warrant specified that he should be released on bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each of Rs. 50,000. After his arrest he was so released by the Commissioner of police at Madras and was directed to appear before the District Magistrate of Kanpur at 11 A.M. on 26-11-1947. He did appear before the District Magistrate on that date. The District Magistrate then decided to re-arrest him and sent him to jail. A point has been raised that this action of the District Magistrate was not proper and that the applicant should be allowed to remain on bail furnished in Madras. That, however, is not possible now because the District Magistrate haying taken him in custody on 26-11-1947, the bail on which he was released in Madras must automatically be deemed to have been cancelled. It is not, therefore, possible to revive that bail. That is the reason why the applicant had to give fresh bail when he was later released by the Special Magistrate who is in charge of the applicant's case.

2. The matter of bail came up before the Special Magistrate on 27-11-1947 and the Magistrate passed an order granting bail to the applicant on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each of Rs. 25,000. The order of the Magistrate further shows that at this stage, after the Magistrate had decided to give bail to the applicant as above, the prosecuting Inspector pointed out to him that the sureties should be ordered to furnish security in cash or movable property as immovable property could not be given as security. The Prosecuting Inspector wanted to cite a case of this Court in support of his contention. The point was contested on behalf of the applicant and 29-11-1947 was fixed for final orders.

3. On that day, the Prosecuting Inspector cited the case in Nisar Ahmad v. Emoeror : AIR1945All389 . That case lays down that immovable property cannot be sequestered in case a bond has to be forfeited unless there is a registered security bond. The leaned Magistrate after referring to that case said that, under those circumstances, he was bound to order that cash security should be furnished. The actual order of the leaned Magistrate may well be put down here because there is some dispute as to whether there was an offer of cash security by the applicant or whether there was a demand of it by the Magistrate. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:

Under these circumstances, I am bound to order that cash security be furnished. I am informed by the counsel for the accused that he will furnish cash security to the extent of Rs. 25.000 and he prays that two personal and reliable sureties of Rs. 25,000 and 19.000 more be accepted. I shall pass further orders on 112-1947 when cash security is furnished.

4. The contention on behalf of the applicant is that there was a demand by the Magistrate of cash security and that this demand was not justified under Section 499, Criminal P.C. The leaned Government Advocate, on the other hand, says that cash security was taken because it was offered by the applicant in hew of the provisions of Section 513, Criminal P.C. It may be mentioned that this point that cash security was taken because it was offered by the applicant, has not been mentioned in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Crown. The leaned Government Advocate suggests that I might call for a further report from the Magistrate because the offer is said to have been verbal. I do not think it necessary to call for any further report because it seems to me that the offer came after the Magistrate had apparently decided to demand cash security. The part of the order which I have set out above shows that the Magistrate was demanding the whole amount, namely, Rs. 50,000 in cash and the offer then came from the side of the applicant that he would deposit Rs. 25,000 in cash and that for the remaining sum of Rs. 25,000 two sureties of Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 15,000 may be accepted. This kind of offer is really not con templated by Section 513, Criminal P.C., where it comes as a compromise after a Magistrate has decided to demand a certain sum as cash security. The language of Section 499, Criminal P.C., makes it perfectly clear that what that section contemplates is the furnishing of a personal bond by the accused person and a bond by one or more sufficient sureties. The accused as well as the sureties have, therefore, to execute only bonds which are sufficient in the mind of the Magistrate for the amount which he might have fixed. This is also the view taken by the Patna High Court in Rajballam Singh v. Emperor and I respectfully agree with it. Section 513 provides for a concession to an accused person who is unable to produce sureties. That section also makes it clear that the Magistrate is not bound to accept cash, but may permit an accused person to deposit a sum of money in lieu of executing a personal bond and giving surety of some persons. That section, however, does not authorise a demand of cash by a Magistrate. Under these circumstances, even though an offer may have been made in this case by the counsel for the applicant, that offer was made after the Magistrate apparently had made up his mind to demand cash security. It will not be covered by the terms of Section 513, Criminal P.C., and the demand of cash security in this case was clearly illegal.

5. The next question that arises is as to what should be the order of this Court in the matter of bail. I think that the order of the Magistrate which he passed on 27th of November was a proper order and should be restored. I cannot accept the contention of the applicant that he should be released merely on his personal bond. It is for the Magistrate to satisfy himself, particularly in cases in which a heavy amount for bail is being demanded, that the surety concerned would be in a position to pay in case he is not able to produce the accused person and I am sure that when the Magistrate comes to consider this question, he will keep this in mind If the Magistrate is not able to satisfy himself that the surety which may be produced will be able to pay the amount in case of necessity, it will then be open to the applicant to take advantage of Section 513, Criminal P.C.

6. I, therefore, order that the applicant should be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each of Rs. 25,000 to the satisfaction of the leaned Special Magistrate who is dealing with the case. In the meantime, the present order of the leaned Magistrate under which the applicant has been released will stand. The amount of Rs. 25,000 will be refunded after the sureties have been furnished according to my order. The applicant has already furnished one surety for Rs. 25,000 which has been accepted by the Magistrate and he will, therefore, have to find one more surety for Rs. 25,000 to the satisfaction of the Magistrate before he can be allowed to with-draw the amount.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //