Skip to content


Mahabir Pande and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1920All206(1); 57Ind.Cas.456
AppellantMahabir Pande and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 514 - bail-bonds for appearance in specified court--failure to appear in other court, whether ground for forfeiture of bond. - - the district magistrate says that the bail bonds did not specify the court of the trying magistrate by name, but the applicants clearly undertook to attend at each hearing of the care. that by kishore and sirajul haq is alto to the same effect, gherao khan's is precisely similar......bonds on three different dates in the month of november 1919 for appearance in the court of syed muhammad idris (who was then on tour) on the dates on which the case might be heard or for appearance before the court of session if the case necessitated a commitment to that court, and in case of default undertook to pay rs 50 each. on the 30th november 1919 syed muhammad idris ordered the applicants to appear before thakur balbhaddar singh, magistrate, in azamgarh on the 3rd december 1919, as the evidence of the civil surgeon was to be recorded on that date before him in azamgarh, but one of the accused muhib ali only appeared before thakar balbhaddar singh and the remaining accused, who are applicants before me, did not do so. upon this after inquiry syed muhammad idris ordered the.....
Judgment:

George Knox, J.

1. This case has been referred by the Sessions Judge of Azamgarh. In his judgment the learned Judge says that Mahabir, Mannu Pande, Kishore Misir, Gherao Khan, Sirajul Haq and Din Muhammad executed personal bonds on three different dates in the month of November 1919 for appearance in the Court of Syed Muhammad Idris (who was then on tour) on the dates on which the case might be heard or for appearance before the Court of Session if the case necessitated a commitment to that Court, and in case of default undertook to pay Rs 50 each. On the 30th November 1919 Syed Muhammad Idris ordered the applicants to appear before Thakur Balbhaddar Singh, Magistrate, in Azamgarh on the 3rd December 1919, as the evidence of the Civil Surgeon was to be recorded on that date before him in Azamgarh, but one of the accused Muhib Ali only appeared before Thakar Balbhaddar Singh and the remaining accused, who are applicants before me, did not do so. Upon this after inquiry Syed Muhammad Idris ordered the forfeiture of the bail bonds of all the applicants under Section 564 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These men appealed to the District Magistrate, who reduced the penalty to Rs. 20 each.

2. The applicants applied to the Sessions Judge of Azamgarh, and the learned Judge in his order says that the bail bonds were for bearing before Syed Muhammad Idris or the Court of Session, and not before any other Magistrate or Court, and considered this legal objection in the order of forfeiture and has referred the case to this Court. The District Magistrate says that the bail bonds did not specify the Court of the trying Magistrate by name, but the applicants clearly undertook to attend at each hearing of the care. On turning to the record it will be found that this statement made by the learned Magistrate is not accurate. I take up the case of each man. The bail bond executed by Mahabir Pande, paper No. 31 on the record, is the Form No. 42. In it he binds himself to attend in the Court of Syed Muhammad Idris Khan and the Court of Session. The bond executed by Mannu Pande and Din Muhammad is to the same effect and contains no mention of any other Court than the Court of Syed Muhammad Idris and the Court of Session. That by Kishore and Sirajul Haq is alto to the same effect, Gherao Khan's is precisely similar. It will be seen then that the learned Sessions Judge is right that none of these persons had been required to appear in the Court of Thakur Balbhaddar Singh. The omission is due to the negligence of the officer appointed by the Court to get the bonds verified, and it will be for the Court to decide what action should be taken for this negligence. The order directing the confiscation of the bonds in the case of these persons is set, aside and the money, if paid, must be refunded.


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