RATANLAL Vs. STATE
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-12-9
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on December 12,1952

RATANLAL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Kotah recommending that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chechat dated the 23rd July, 1951 sending the applicant Ratan Lal to prison for unexpired period be set aside. The applicant Ratan Lal was ordered under sec. 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code to furnish security for a period of six months. THIS order was made on the 10th February 1951. Thus the period of six months was to expire on the 10th of August, 1951. Before this, on the 8th of June, 1951, an application was made on behalf of Thikana Kotdi that in spite of the security for keeping the peace, the applicant was attempting to commit violence and therefore, his security be forfeited. On this application, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate took proceedings for forfeiting the security against the surety and also sent the applicant to prison for unexpired period out of six months. Against this, an application for revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Kotah, and the learned Sessions Judge has made a reference that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no power to send the applicant to jail for the unexpired period, and therefore, his order be quashed.
(2.)I have gone through the record and have also heard Mr. V. P. Tyagi on behalf of the applicant. No appearance has been put in on behalf of the State to oppose or support the reference. To me the procedure adopted by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate appears to be very strange. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code under which a person who has been bound down for keeping the peace under sec. 107 Criminal Procedure Code and has furnished security can be sent to jail for the unexpired period, if he had committed or attempted to commit or abetted any offence. Under sec. 121 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is of course, provided that the bond to be executed shall bind the person against whom an order for furnishing security to keep the peace is made, and in case he commits or attempts to commit or abets an offence punishable with imprisonment, wherever it may be committed, it is to be considered the breach of the bond. If such a case is made out, all that can be done is that the bond shall be forfeited. There is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code warranting the sending of such person to jail for the unexpired period of the bond. I am supported in my view by a ruling of Allahabad High Court in the case of Emperor vs. Jagdeo Singh (1) (I. L. R. 20 All. p. 629. ). It was held in that case that - "where a person has given security for good behaviour and his security is subsequently forfeited the amount of his forfeited bond may be exacted, but he cannot be also committed to prison for the unexpired portion of the term for which security had been taken. " The order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate therefore, cannot be sustained.
The reference is accepted and the order of the, Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated the 23rd July, 1951, committing the applicant Ratan Lal to prison for the unexpired period of his bond is set aside. The bail bond which he furnished for appearance during the revision before the Sessions Judge, is discharged. .



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.