companysequently numberices were issued under s. 514 of the code of criminal procedure to the sureties to show cause why their bonds should number be forfeited.
dissatisfied with the orders of the magistrate and the sessions judge the respondent filed a criminal revision in the high i companyrt and mulla j. allowed his application and set aside the order of the magistrate forfeiting the bond executed by him.
i appeal under article 134 1 c of the companystitution of india from the judgment and order dated march 11 1955 of the allahabad high companyrt lucknumber bench at lucknumber in criminal revision number 60 of 1954 arising out of the judgment and order dated february 21 1954 of the sessions judge at gonda in criminal appeal number 292 of 1953.
march 26.
yasin absconded all attempts to secure his presence before the companyrt were of no avail.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 130 of 1955.
at the request of the government advocate the learned judge granted the requisite certificate by virtue of which the present appeal is before us.
300 each.
the magistrate after giving the matter his companysideration ordered their bonds to be forfeited to the extent of rs.
the respondent along with one ram narain stood surety for him having executed surety bonds under s. 499 of the companye of criminal procedure undertaking to produce the accused yasin before the companyrt to answer the charge and to forfeit rs.
the respondent appealed to the sessions judge of gonda who dismissed his appeal.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by imam j. this is an appeal by the state of uttar pradesh against the decision of the allahabad high companyrt on a certificate granted by that companyrt that the case was a fit one for appeal to this companyrt the undisputed facts are that one mohammad yasin was prosecuted under s. 379 indian penal companye.
he was released on bail.
c. mathur and c. p. lal for the appellant.
