JANARDAN NAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition, in revision, against the order of the Additional District Magistrate Judicial maintaining the order of the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Athgarh, dated 15 -6 -1962 taking coercive steps to forfeit the bail bond executed by the Petitioner and (another person), for failure to produce one Karnal Singh who had been prosecuted in his Court for an offence under Section 9(80) of the Opium Act.

(2.) THE bail bond was actually forfeited on 19 -7 -1961, and the bailor was caned upon to show cause why he should not deposit the entire amount forfeited. The bailor showed cause and undertook to produce the accused. The show cause was ultimately rejected on 28 -2 -1962 and the amount was forfeited to the State of Orissa. Then coercive steps such as issue of distress warrant were taken against him. The learned Additional District Magistrate maintained the order of the S.D.M. forfeiting the bond and imposing penalty. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr.B. Mohapatra for the Petitioner against the forfeiture of the bond on the ground that the original bond executed by the bailor was in favour of His Majesty the King -Emperor of India and not in favour of the State. There was also no clear undertaking given in the bond, to bind himself to produce the accused. The bond was as follows:

(3.) A similar question came up for decision before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in : A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 587. There they held that a bond like the present one was not a bond under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that no order of forfeiture can be passed on the basis of such a bond. Though the learned Additional District Magistrate has observed that this Supreme Court case is distinguishable he has not given any valid reasons for saying so. I must, following the aforesaid Supreme Court decision, hold that the bond in question does not conform to the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the order of forfeiture cannot be maintained.