Skip to content


Chamra Meher and anr. Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn No. 58 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1951Ori179
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 499, 499(1) and 514
AppellantChamra Meher and anr.
RespondentState of Orissa
Appellant AdvocateG.G. Das, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAdv. General
DispositionRevision petition allowed
Cases ReferredGobindachandra v. State
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot..........an appeal filed by the petnrs against the order of a 1st class mag, boudh, forfeiting their bond executed in a case under schedule 20/471, i. p. c. in the ct, of the said mag. two persons named nrusing meher & hrusikesh meher were accused persons in that case. on 11-11-48 when they appeared before the s. d. m. they were directed to be released on bail of rs. 1,000/- each & then the case was transferred to the file of a 1st class mag named sri s. b. mohapatra for disposal. then the two petnrs acting as sureties for the accused persons executed a bond undertaking to produce them before the ct on such dates as may be fixed. strangely enough the accused persons themselves were not required to execute bonds for their appearance before the ct on several successive dates. whether this.....
Judgment:

Narasimham, J.

1. This petn is against the appellate order of the Dist Mag of Boudh-Phulbani dismissing an appeal filed by the petnrs against the order of a 1st class Mag, Boudh, forfeiting their bond executed in a case under Schedule 20/471, I. P. C. in the Ct, of the said Mag. Two persons named Nrusing Meher & Hrusikesh Meher were accused persons in that case. On 11-11-48 when they appeared before the S. D. M. they were directed to be released on bail of Rs. 1,000/- each & then the case was transferred to the file of a 1st class Mag named Sri S. B. Mohapatra for disposal. Then the two petnrs acting as sureties for the accused persons executed a bond undertaking to produce them before the Ct on such dates as may be fixed. Strangely enough the accused persons themselves were not required to execute bonds for their appearance before the Ct on several successive dates. Whether this omission was due to oversight or not it is difficult to say. But whatever that may be the fact remains that there is on record no bond signed by the ac cused persons for their appearance on successive dates.

2. The main point of law urged by Mr. Das in support of this petn is that a bond executed only by the sureties & not by the accused persons also will not be a proper bond as contemplated by Schedule 99 (1), Cr. P. C. & that consequently the Mag had no jurisdiction to forfeit the bond while purporting to act under Schedule 14, Cr. P. C. In support of this contention he relied on a recent decision of my lord the Chief Justice in 'Gobindachandra v. State', Cri. Revn. No. 168 of 1950, (AIR (38) 1951 Orissa 18: 52 CrLJ 97) in which the entire case law on the subject has been exhaustively discussed. With respect I would agree with the reasoning given in that judgment & hold that a bond executed only by the sureties is (not a bond as contemplated by Schedule 99 (1), Cr. P. C. & that consequently the summary procedure for forfeiture of a bond provided in Schedule 14, Cr. P. C. will not be applicable to such a case.

3. I would accordingly allow the revision petn & set aside the order of the appellate Ct.

Ray, C.J.

4. I agree.


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