Caspersz and Ryves, JJ.
Criminal Revision No. 339 of 1909.
1. This is a Rule upon the District Magistrate to show cause why his order, dated the 5th March 1909, directing forfeiture of ten per cent, of the amount of each bail-bond, executed by the petitioners on behalf of certain accused persons, should not be set aside.
2. We do not propose to enter into all the facts of this case, because, in our opinion, the petitioners are not liable for the forfeiture of their bonds, in accordance with the conditions mentioned therein. Now, the terms of each bail-bond are these:
We hereby stand surety for the production of the above-named persons in the Sessions Court, on the 1st December next, in the sum of Rs. 200 each, and that, in the case of default, we shall forfeit the amount of the surety to the King-Emperor.
3. The accused did appear in the Court of Session on the 1st December 1908, and, consequently, the condition of the bond was satisfied. The subsequent proceedings, at the instance of the District Magistrate, were, therefore, not warranted by the terms of the bond. The Rule is made absolute, and the order complained of is set aside.
4. Criminal Revision No. 340 of 1909.) The circumstances in which this Rule was issued resemble those in Rule No. 339 of 1909 which we have just disposed of. Here, however, the bail-bond is drawn up somewhat differently, namely, as follows:
We hereby stand surety under the above conditions for the aforesaid accused persons, convicted under the above sections, and undertake to produce them in the above-mentioned Court on every date that may be fixed for hearing, or whenever required, and, in case of default, we bind ourselves to forfeit to His Majesty the King-Emperor of India the sum of Rs. 200 in the case of each.
5. The language contemplates the production of the accused persons in the Court of Session, and the order of the District Magistrate, dated the 5th March 1909, has no reference to the failure to produce the accused persons in that Court, but rather to some subsequent failure with which the petitioners were not legally concerned. The interpretation of the words 'whenever required' in the bail-bond means, in our opinion, that a requisition might be made by the Court 'of Session for the production of the accused in that Court. The Rule is made absolute. The order complained of is set aside.
6. We desire to add that the bail-bonds referred to in these two Rules were not accurately drawn up, and did not properly provide for the production of the accused persons after their appeals had been disposed of by the Sessions Judge. Such a bond should contain a clear proviso for the production of the accused persons before the Court or officer who is to take measures to secure the surrender of the accused and to re-commit them to jail in terms of the warrant: gee General Rules and Circular Orders (Criminal), Chapter I, Rule No. 119, page 45.