1. The Magistrate's order directing the attachment and sale of the moveable property of the petitioner on forfeiture of the surety bond executed by him for Rs. 2,400 is illegal, and must be set aside. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code authorizing a Police officer to take security for the production of any person before the Police. If the bond was in this respect bad, the Magistrate had no power to alter it and to impose on the petitioner a fresh obligation.
2. Assuming, however, that the conditions of the bond could be legally enforced, there has been a total disregard of the provisions of Section 514 of the Code. The bond was taken by a Police officer, and that section requires that on its being proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and call upon the person bound by it to show cause why the penalty should not be paid. In the present case the petitioner denied the execution of the bond, and cited as his witnesses the Police officer, to whom it was said to have been given, and other Police officers. These were witnesses whose attendance he could not enforce without the assistance of the Magistrate, and it is difficult to see how the Magistrate could, on the mere report of a Police officer, whose conduct in the matter was directly challenged, be satisfied that the bond had been executed.
3. A Magistrate acting under Section 514 must proceed on legal evidence, and the penalty can only be enforced on proof that the bond was duly executed and forfeited. The denial of execution by the petitioner made it incumbent on the Magistrate to take evidence as to the fact of execution.
4. The Magistrate's proceedings are in other respects illegal. If the notice to produce the accused persons within ten days was only served upon the petitioner on the 12th August, there was no breach on the 18th, when the Magistrate summarily ordered that the amount should be realized by attachment and sale of his moveable property.