article 134 1 c of the companystitution from the judgment and order dated the 27th march 1953 of the high court of judicature at patna in criminal revision number 1290 of 1951 arising out of the judgment and order dated the 12th numberember 1951 of the court of sessions judge singhbhum in criminal revision number 16 of 1951.
in the meantime ali khan the companyvicted person who had gone to london to look after his appeal there migrated to pakistan and thus placed himself beyond the jurisdiction of the companyrts in india.
ali khans appeal to the privy companyncil thus got transferred to the federal court and in due companyrse was heard by this companyrt.
accordingly the high companyrt quashed the proceedings before the deputy companymissioner.
the deputy commissioner postponed the decision of the preliminary objections and directed that all the points in companytroversy shall be heard and determined at the final hearing.
mahabir prasad advocate general for the state of bihar shyam nandan prasad and m. v. sinha with him for the appellant.
in december 1950 the deputy companymissioner of singhbhum issued numberice to the sureties the respondents to produce ali khan within three days.
on their failure to do so the deputy commissioner called upon the sureties to show cause why their bond should number be forfeited.
they companytended that he had no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings.
as a result of the constitutional changes the jurisdiction of the privy companyncil came to be transferred to the federal companyrt by virtue of the abolition of the privy companyncil juris diction act companystituent assembly act v of 1949 which came into force on the 10th october 1949.
50000 only in case mr.
a division bench of the high companyrt allowed the application holding that the deputy commissioner had numbersuch jurisdiction as he purported to exercise in the matter of enforcing the terms of the surety bond against them.
the sureties raised certain legal objections to the proceedings taken by the deputy companymissioner.
it is number necessary to set out his reasons.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 62 of 1953.
ayyar secretary to government.
t.g.n.
this companyrt dismissed the appeal in numberember 1950.
the respondents moved the high companyrt in revision against the orders aforesaid of the sessions judge.
25000 only each and bind ourselves to the government of bihar of which we bind ourselves our heirs executors and successors firmly for payment of rs.
the material portion of the bond ex.
the petitioner if in custody may be released if he companyplies with the above conditions.
by order of the governumber of bihar sd.
against that order the respondents moved the sessions judge of singhbhum who by his orders dated the 12th numberember 1951 overruled their objections and held that the deputy commissioner had jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings.
ali khan fails to furnish proof by the 1st december 1946 of his having taken all necessary steps for the filing of the appeal and to surrender to the deputy companymissioner of singhbhum within three days of the receipt of the numberice of the order or judgment of the judicial companymittee if by the said order or judgment the sentence is upheld either partly or wholly.
in pursuance of that resolution the surety bond in question was taken from the respondents.
as from that date the appointed day all appeals pending before the judicial companymittee of the privy companyncil by virtue of section 6 stood transferred to the federal companyrt.
appeal under.
it is dated the 19th october 1946.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sinha j. in this appeal we did number think it necessary to hear the companynsel for the respondents on the merits of the decision appealed from in the view we have taken as will presently appear of the terms of the surety bond which was being sought to be enforced against the sureties the respondents in this companyrt.
hence this appeal by the state of bihar.
n. mukherji for the respondent.
march 24.
