| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1957 SLG 4033 = 1957 SLD 4033 = 1957 PLD 480 |
Criminal Revision No. 65 of 1957, decided on 13th June 1957.
Presented By: Chakraborti, J
Muhammad Nurul Huda for Petitioner. B. N. Chowdhury for the State.
SHARIFUDDIN AHMED----Petitioner
VERSUS
THE STATE----Opposite---Party
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 514
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 514-Bond, forfeiture of-Compliance with provisions of S. 514 before order for forfeiture, necessary-Court should record evidence and finding that bond has been forfeited before issuing notice-Sufficient proof based on good reasons for making the order-Necessary. Section 514, Criminal Procedure Code, provides for two steps taken by the Magistrate. Firstly, it must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the bond has been forfeited whereupon the Court is to record the grounds of such proof. Secondly, the Court on being satisfied as afore said may call upon the person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid. It is the duty of the Magistrate to record evidence and come to a definite finding that the bond has been forfeited before a notice is issued upon the bailor to show cause why the penalty should not be realized from him under section 514, Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate is bound to have before him sufficient proof that a good reason exists for making the order, and the grounds of such proof must be recorded before issuing notice upon the person, who is subject to a bond, to show cause why he should not forfeit it. Zulmi Kahar v. Emperor A I R 1929 Pat. 643 ref. Gurupada Mudaliar v. Government of Mysore A I R 1952 Mysore 102; In re: Hartram Birbhan 11 B H C 170; In re: Mohesh Chandra Ray 10 C L R 571 and Krishna Narain Singh v. Emperor A I R 1922 Pat. 242 ref. Rajbansi Bhagat and another v. Emperor A I R 1929 Pat. 658 not relied. JUDGMENT CHAKRABORTI, J.----In this case, a Rule was issued upon the District Magistrate of Dacca to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside. The relevant facts are: The petitioner along with another stood surety for Rs. 5,000 each for the appearance of one Askari. The bail bond was executed in March 1955. The accused Askari thereafter attended the Court from day to day. Askari has two wives and children who live at Taherbegh Lane at Dacca. He had also some business at Narayanganj where he used to go daily. On the 3rd of June 1955, the bailors…