The appellant met the same fate in revision which was preferred to the High Court.
5,000/ .
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated the 22nd November, 1974 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No.
The appellant went up in appeal to the learned Session Judge against the magistrates order.
5,000/ .
C. Agarwala and M. M. L. Srivastava, for the appellant.
After hearing the appellant, the magistrate ordered the forfeiture of the bond and directed the appellant to pay penalty of Rs.
P. Rana, for the respondent.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
On 3 12 1969, the police during the companyrse of investigation recovered the car and handed it over to the appellant on supardnama on his executing a personal bond whereby the appellant undertook to produce the car in the companyrt whenever necessary, and in the case of failure to do so, he bound himself to pay a penalty of Rs.
He filed a report before the police alleging that Ran Singh and others had practised a fraud on him and had taken away his car and had number returned the same.
By the time the matter came to the Court, two years had elapsed and on 14 9 1971, the munsiff magistrate, Meerut, called upon the appellant to produce the car, and as he was unable to do so, a numberice was issued under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for forfeiture of the bond.
2475 of 1971.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B FAZAL ALI J. This appeal by special leave involves a short point of law relating to the legal enforceability of a personal bond executed by the appellant before the police for the production of the car belonging to him, which was alleged to have been stolen.
The facts leading to the appeal fall within a very narrow companypass.
USD 5317 from the dealers ON the basis of a hire purchase agreement.
The appellant appears to have bought a car No.
Hence, this appeal before us.
of 1975.
