Skip to content


Ela Buksh Mundal and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in6Ind.Cas.124
AppellantEla Buksh Mundal and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 122 - surety, unfitness of--reasons to be recorded--notice to proposed sureties. - .....matters which show that these persons are generally speaking bad characters. the magistrate, in rejecting sureties under section 122, criminal procedure code, has to record his reasons for doing so. from this, it seems to follow that the reasons must have been carefully considered and tested which is best done by their being brought to the notice of the persons who are refused as sureties and by their having an opportunity for controverting them. the result is that before the magistrate rejected the sureties in this case for the reasons alleged, he should have brought them to their notice and heard what they had to say on their own behalf. this was apparently not done.2. accordingly the rule is made absolute. we set aside the order rejecting the sureties and direct the magistrate to.....
Judgment:

1. In this case certain persons have been bound down under Section 118, Criminal Procedure Code. Sureties have been offered on their behalf and have been rejected by the Magistrate on the grounds that, as they are receivers of stolen property, it would, be dangerous to accept them as sureties, and that they are connected with gangs of dacoits. Other somewhat similar reasons are alleged. As far as the recorded reasons show they are derived wholly from a Police report. The Magistrate in his explanation says that he relies on another source of information, namely, an enquiry instituted by himself in which he heard various matters which show that these persons are generally speaking bad characters. The Magistrate, in rejecting sureties under Section 122, Criminal Procedure Code, has to record his reasons for doing so. From this, it seems to follow that the reasons must have been carefully considered and tested which is best done by their being brought to the notice of the persons who are refused as sureties and by their having an opportunity for controverting them. The result is that before the Magistrate rejected the sureties in this case for the reasons alleged, he should have brought them to their notice and heard what they had to say on their own behalf. This was apparently not done.

2. Accordingly the Rule is made absolute. We set aside the order rejecting the sureties and direct the Magistrate to proceed further in the matter as he may see fit in accordance with what we have said.


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