Case Details

Citation(s)
1957 SLG 4029 = 1957 SLD 4029 = 1957 PLD 494
Dacca High Court
Criminal Revision No. 643 of 1955, decided on 25th June 1956.
Presented By: Ismail, J
Md. Nurul Huda for Petitioner.   Syed Modaris Ali for the State.

WALI MUHAMMAD and another----Petitioners  

VERSUS

  THE STATE---Opposite---Parties

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 514

  Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 514-Notice to surety-Not condition precedent to recording of findingFinal order passed without notice-Not illegal.   There is nothing in the section 214 of the Code to indicate that issue and service of notice to the surety are conditions precedent to the recording of a finding by the Court regarding the forfeiture of a bond. There is nothing, however, to prevent the Court having regards to the facts and circumstances of a particular case before him, to issue such a notice in exercise of his discretion. But there is no scope to interpret that in the absence of an issue of service of such a notice the final order passed becomes illegal.   Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 514 Order of forfeiture passed without enquiry in materials calling for thorough considerations-Liable to be set aside.   Where the Court does not record a finding regarding forfeiture of the bond on the absence of the accused, specially where there are materials calling for a thorough considera tion of the Court and which could not, with propriety, be disposed of without enquiry the order of forfeiture is liable to be set aside.   An enquiry sought for by the petitioners (Bailors) in response to the notice issued by the Magistrate asking them to show cause, if not made, and Police records to sub stantiate the allegations of the petitioners if never called for, the recording of the `grounds' of `proof' as required by section 514 could not be made before such enquiry, but only after such enquiry and the order of the Magistrate calling upon the Batlors to make payments of the bail amount as penalties is liable to be set aside.   Prohit Anandi Prasad and others v. Rex A I R 1949 All. 322 ref.    JUDGMENT   ISMAIL, J.------The two petitioners who stood sureties undertaking to produce an accused, were called upon by Mr. Momin, Magistrate, 1st Class, Dacca, in a proceeding under section 514, Criminal Procedure Code, to pay up the entire bail amount of Rs. 12,500 each, as their respec tive penalty, as mentioned in the bail bond furnished by them, and accepted by the Magistrate. Against the said order…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register