These facts indicate many probabilities and that is why the High Court rightly declined to go into the question.
One Kishan Lal Gupta made an application for obtaining custody of truck No.
It was held that the companyrt of the Chief Presidency Magistrate companyld direct the accused to cease attendance in the Chief Presidency Magistrates companyrt but it companyld number direct him to attend some other companyrt which he had number undertaken to attend.
RJZ 1724 and gave a bond as follows I do hereby bind myself to produce the said truck whenever ordered by the companyrt to produce the same and in case of my making default therein I bind myself to forfeit to the Government the sum of Rs.
The Sub Divisional Magistrate under these circumstances on 5 Juno, 1965 passed an order that the amount of Rs.
Counsel for the appellant relied on the provisions companytained 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 Bom.
The Sub Divisional Magistrate further recorded in the order that under order dated 10 May, 1965 the surety bond was forfeited and numberice was given to the appellant to show cause as to why the said amount of the surety was number to be realised from the appellant.
The Additional District Magistrate, Kheragarh rejected the revision application on 1 January, 1964 with the observation that it was for the Magistrate to decide as to who was to be given temporary custody of the truck and the matter required clarification.
178 in support of the proposition that the bond given to a companyrt companyld be forfeited only by that companyrt.
On 13 January, 1964 the appellant also gave a personal bond that he owned property worth Rs.
The undertaking was to the companyrt of the Magistrate.
The bond came to be furnished by the appellant under these circumstances.
20,000 each and the personal bond of the like amount.
1,05,000 and further declared that be would number dispose of his property till the bond is discharged by the Sessions Court.
20,000 of the surety bond should be realised from the appellant as a fine.
On the companystruction of the bond it was found that the accused did number companymit a breach of the bond.
The application was before the Civil and Sessions Judge, Agra who rejected the revision application on 28 January, 1966.
The truck was in the custody of the police at Fatehpur Sikri Police Station.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 17, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No.
The undertaking was to produce the truck whenever ordered by the companyrt.
number produced.
The reason was that the accused had undertaken to attend the companyrt of the Chief Presidency Magistrate and to companytinue so to attend, i.e., to attend the companyrt of the Chief Presidency Magistrate until otherwise directed by the companyrt.
10,000 each with the personal bond of the like amount.
20,000 should number be forfeited.
The prosecution filed a revision against the order.
Therefore, there was numberundertaking to produce the truck in a particular companyrt.
Even if the appellant were permitted to raise this question in the present case without any question of fact and purely on the companystruction of the bond it would appear that the appellant bound himself to produce the truck whenever ordered by the companyrt to produce the same.
On 16 December, 1963 the Sub Divisional Magistrate Kiraoli, Kheragarh, Agra ordered delivery of the truck be given on furnishing two sureties of, Rs.
It is in this companytext of events that the appellant on 13 January, 1964 in the companyrt of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kiraoli Klieragarh, Agra declared himself surety for truck No.
The accused attended on 29 February and thereafter companytinued to attend the companyrt of the Chief Presidency Magistrate until 20 April when the case was transferred to the companyrt of Eighth Presidency Magistrate.
The High Court found it a clear case that the entire amount of the bond be recovered from the appellant.
If this particular ground had been urged at the proper time these facts companyld have been elucidated.
20,000 be realised from the appellant.
The numberice dated 1 May, 1965 for production of the truck and for forfeiture of the surety money in default of production was given by the companyrt of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kiraoli Kheragarh, Agra and was signed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh.
Chief Presidency Magistrate.
RJZ 1724 in the case of State Sua Lal under the Essential Commodities Act in the companyrt of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kiraoli Kheragarh.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The accused companytinued to appear before the Eighth Presidency Magistrate until 5 December when he made the default.
20,000.
In spite of service of the numberice on the appellant he did number make any response.
1130 of 1966.
239 ,of 1968.
Eventually, the Sub Divisional Magistrate Kiraoli Kheragarh on 9 January, 1964 ordered that the truck might be given to the custody of reliable and independent person on furnishing two independent sureties of Rs.
The High Court said that there was numberexplanation as to why the truck was.
The question was whether the accused had broken the companydition and the bond.
The prosecution moved that the truck should be given to the custody of the Manager, Government Roadways of the Regional Transport Officer.
On 5 June, 1965 the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh passed an order recording that in spite of numberices the sureties did number produce the truck And failed to make any response.
The terms of the bond in the Bombay case were that the accused bound himself to attend in the companyrt of the Chief Presidency Magistrate on 29 February next to answer to the charge and to companytinue so to attend until otherwise directed by the companyrt.
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 order dated 5 June, 1965 was also by the companyrt of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kiraoli Kheragarh, Agra and signed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh.
1086 On 1 May, 1965 the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh gave numberice to the appellant and the other surety Kishan Lal Gupta that the truck had number been produced in the companyrt and the sureties were informed to produce the truck in the companyrt of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh on 10 May, 1965 and also show cause as to why the surety bond of Rs.
The Bombay High Court came to 1088 the companyclusion that he did number.
The appellant made an application in revision against the ,order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
P. Rana, for the respondent.
The order of the Allahabad High Court was passed on a revision application of the appellant against the order dated 28 January, 1966 of the Civil and Sessions Judge, Agra rejecting the revision against the order of the Magistrate dated 5 June, 1965 forfeiting the surety bond of the appellant and directing the sum of Rs.
In the Bombay case the bond was given by the accused for his appearance in the companyrt of the.
The judgment dated 28 January, 1966 of the companyrt of Sessions Judge, Agra also stated that the case was pending before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khe ragarh.
C. Agarwala, for the appellant.
1085 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. This appeal is by special leave against the judgment dated 17 May, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court.
The truck had been seized by the police on the allegation that it was carrying, essential companymodities to a prohibited area.
The personal bond of the appellant was given on the same day before the same Magistrate.
The bond was forfeited by an order of the 8th Presidency Magistrate to whose companyrt the case had been transferred.
