RAMESH CHANDRA v. STATE OF U.P

The appellant thereafter went up in revision to the High Court at Allahabad against the order of the Civil and Sessions Judge dated 28 January, 1966. The High Court said that there was no explanation as to why the truck was i!lOt produced. The High Court found it a clear ca>e that the entire amount of the bond be recovered from the appellant. On behalf of the appellant prayer was made for reduction of the amount, The High Court fou.nd no justification for the same. Before the High Court the point was raised that the surety bond was given in one court and it was forfeited in another court. The High Court did JJ.Ot allow the question to be raised on the ground that the point had not been raised either before the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge, and, therefore, the High Court declined to allow any such question to be raised. Counsel for the appellant contended that the bond was exe cuted in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kiraoli and the order of forfeiture of the surety bond was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh and it was only the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kiraoli which could forfeit the bond .amount and no other court could. ' A B c D E F 0 H RAMESH CHANDRA v. U,P. STATE (Ray, J.) 1087 A B c D E F G H The High Court rightly refused the appellant to urge this ground as to want of jurisdiction of the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh to forfeit the bond amou.nt. Such a plea of jurisdiction is interlaced with questions o,f fact. It may be that the case was transferred from the court of one Magistrate to the court of another. It may be that a particular court is abo lished and the jurisdiction of the abolished court is transferred to It may be that allocation of business is changed the other court. If or redistributed among Magistrates Court from time to time. this particular ground had been urged at the proper time these facts could have been elucidated. It wili appear from the records that the surety bond was given on 13 January, 1964 in the court o,f Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kiraoli Kheragarh, Agra. The personal bond of the appellant was given on the same day before the same Magistrate. The notice dated 1 May, 1965 for production of the truck and for forfeiture of the surety money in default of production was given by the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kiraoli Kheragarh, Agra and was signed. by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh. The order dated 5 June, 1965 was also by the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kiraoli-Kheragarh, Agra and signed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh. The judgment dated 28 January, 1966 o£ the court of Sessions Judge, Agra also stated that the case was pending before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khe ragarh. These facts indicate many probabilities and that is why the High Court rightly declined to go into the question. Counsel for the appellant relied on the provisions contained in section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Ballabhdas Motiram Gupta v. Emperor reported in A.I.R. 1943 Born. 178 in support of the proposition that the bond given to a court could be forfeited only In the Bombay case the bond was given by the by that court. accused for his appearance in the court of the. Chief Presidency Magistrate. The bond was forfeited by llill order of the 8th Presidency Magistrate to whose court the case had been trans ferred. The terms of the bond in the Bombay case were that the accused bound himself to attend in the court of the Chief Presi dency Magistrate on 29 February next to answer to the charge and to continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the court. The accused attended on 29 February and thereafter continued to attend the court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate until 20 April when the case was transferred to the court of Eighth Presi dency Magistrate. The accused continued to appear before the Eighth Presidency Magistrate until 5 December when he made· the default. The question was whether the accused had broken the condition and the bond. The Bombay High Court came to ... 1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1972] l S.C.R. the conclusion that he did not. The reason was that the accused had undertaken to attend the court of the Chief Presidency Magis trate and to continue so to attend, i.e., to attend the court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate until otherwise directed by the court. It was held that the court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate could direct the accused to cease attendance tn the Chief Presi· dency Magistrate's court but it could not direct him to attend some other court which he had nor undertaken to attend. On the construction of the bond it was found that the accused did not commit a breach of the bond. B Even if the appellant were permitted to raise this question in the present case without any question of fact and purely on the C construction of the bond it would appear that the appellant bound himself to produce the truck whenever ordered by the court to produce the same. Therefore; there was no undertaking to pro· duce the truck in a particular court. The undertaking was to produce the truck whenever ordered by the court. The u:1der taking was to the court of the Magistrate. The_ Magistrate ex er· cises jurisdiction in the whole district under section 12 of the D Criminal Procedure Code. Furthermore, the bond provided that in case of default the appellant bound himse)f to forfeit to the Government the amount covered by the bond sum of Rs. 20,000. There.fore purely on a construction of the surety bond the appel- lant became liable to the State for the sum of Rs. 20,000 by reason of default to produce the truck when he was called upon E to do so. The word 'court' in the bond in the present case will mean the Magistrate's court which dealt with the case. The appeal, therdore, fails and is dismissed. K.B.N. Appeal dismissed. f