M.C. Ghose, J.
1. In this case a rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Sibsagar to show cause why the orders complained of in the petition should not be set aside or why such other or further order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. It appears that one Nepal Chandra Roy was accused of cheating under Section 420, I. P. C., and he was produced in the Court of Mr. Sarma, Magistrate of Sibsagar, on 23rd January last. The Magistrate allowed the accused person to go on furnishing a bail for Rs. 200. Thereupon the petitioner Amulya Charan Pal executed a bail-bond to this effect:
The above named Nepal Chandra Roy will attend the Sibsagar Court in connexion with the case pending against him on the morning of 16th February 1933 at 11 A. M. during the time of first enquiry and shall appear on every (subsequent) day till the disposal of the case etc etc.
2. On 16th February the Magistrate found that the place where the offence was committed was not in Sibsagar but in Lakhimpur District and the case was accordingly sent to Dibrugarh Court for trial. The Magistrate of Dibrugarh called upon the surety to produce the accused. The surety took various adjournments but did not produce the accused whereupon the Magistrate of Dibrugarh sent back the bail bond to the Magistrate of Sibsagar with a request to take necessary action to enforce the provisions of the bond. The Magistrate of Sibsagar in whose Court the bail-bond has been given called upon the surety to produce the accused. The surety did not produce him but argued that as the case had been transferred to Dibrugarh be was not bound to produce the accused at Shibsagar. The Magistrate did not accept the argument and forfeited the bail-bond and directed the surety to pay Rs. 200. The appeal to the District Magistrate was dismissed.
3. It is urged by the learned advocate on the authority of the case in 30 Cal 107 Samsuddin Sarkar v. Emperor, (1902) 30 Cal 107 that when a surety executed a bail-bond guaranteeing that the person for whom be stood surety would appear at the Court of a Deputy Magistrate before whom the case was pending and the accused failed to appear before the District Magistrate to whose file the case had been transferred there was no breach of the condition of the bail-bond. In that case it was the District Magistrate who called upon the surety to produce the accused before the Magistrate in whose Court the bail-bond was executed. The case of 1934 Cal 101 Hem Lal Ganguli v. Emperor, 1984 Cal 101 has also been quoted in support of the proposition that the bail-bond in this case has exhausted itself. In that case, the bail-bond was forfeited by the Magistrate before whom the case was pending. The forfeiture order was reversed on appeal. Thereupon the case was transferred to the original Magistrate and he proceeded to pass an order forfeiting the bail-bond. It was held that such a forfeiture was wrong. In the present case the surety made a contract with the Magistrate of Shibsagar that he would produce the accused on every subsequent date in his Court till the disposal of the case.
4. The case against the accused has not been disposed of. The charge under Section 420, I. P. C., is still pending against him and a warrant without bail has been issued for his arrest. But it is urged that though the case is pending against him in the Dibrugarh Court it has been disposed of so far as the Shibsagar Court is concerned. This view does not appear sound. The petitioner voluntarily stood surety for the accused person that he would produce him before the Magistrate of Shibsagar until the case against the accused was disposed of. He knew very well that the case was not disposed of and that the charge was still pending against the accused person. Before the Magistrate of Dibrugarh he took the plea that he had executed the bail-bond at Shibsagar and would not produce the accused at Dibrugarh. Before the Magistrate of Shibsagar he took the plea that as the case had been sent to Dibrugarh Court the bail-bond had exhausted itself. The proposition does not appear correct. It was a contract between the Crown and the surety The surety contracted with the Crown that he would produce the accused before the Magistrate until the case against the accused was disposed of. The case has not been disposed of and the surety has failed to produce the accused. The rule is discharged.