Abdul Hakim Khan, J.
1. The facts leading to this case are that on seizure of some cattle from accused Raghuvar, the Police entrusted them to the custody of Prabhu Dayal and Phool Chand, who executed a bond in favour of the police promising to produce the cattle either before the police or before the court. On determination of the proceedings in favour of the accused from whose possession the cattle had been seized, the accused wanted back his cattle. Some cattle were returned by the Supardgidars to the accused but others could not be returned because according to the Supardgidars they had died.
The trial court held that the plea that cattle had died was untrue, and therefore, ordered the Supardgidars either to return the cattle or to give their price as entered in the bond. In other words the court forfeited the bond and ordered the Supardgidars to pay the penalty. Against this order a revision was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Morena who rejected it. Now the Supardgidars have filed this revision.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the Magistrate was incompetent to forfeit the bond because it was not a bond under the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. Mr. Bajpai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, had admitted that the bond was written at the instance of the Police. The question is whether such a bond can be forfeited by the court or not. The power of the forfeiture of a bond is given in Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The opening words of the section are when-ever it is proved to the satisfaction of the court by which a bond under this code has been taken.' It is clear from these words that only such bonds can be forfeited by a court which are taken by the court under the Criminal Procedure Code.
But bonds which are outside the purview of the section cannot be forfeited by the court. The bond in the instant case was taken by the police and not by the court under the Code. It, there-fore, follows that such a bond cannot be forfeited by the court and the order of forfeiture and or realisation of the penalty must be set aside.
4. This point was considered by their Lord-ships of the Supreme Court in Rameshwar Bhartia v. State of Assam, AIR 1952 SC 405, and they have held that in forfeiture of a bond under Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code, action can be taken only when the bond is taken by the court under the provisions of the Code. But where a security bond is taken not by a court but by a particular officer such as a procurement Inspector, no action can be taken under Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code for forfeiting the bond.
5. The learned Deputy Government Advocate has not been able to show under what section of the Criminal Procedure Code this bond was taken by the Police. In the circumstances, I must hold that the court was not competent to forfeit the bond under Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
6. For reasons stated above, the revision is allowed and the order of the court forfeiting thebond and calling upon the Supardgidars to return the cattle or deposit their price, is quashed.