N.N.Sharma - (1.) THIS revision is directed against order dated 24-7-1981 by learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Sessions Trial No. 255 of 1980 State v. Baley and others directing the revisionist to deposit a sum of Rs. 9000/- in cash and secure his release pending the trial.
(2.) IT appears that revisionist happened to be absent on the earlier date filed in the trial and so his presence was procured through coercive process. He applied on 24-7-1981 vide paper no. 18-Kha cancellation of warrant and for release on furnishing new surety bonds. The application was granted provided the revisionist deposited a sum of Rs. 3000/- in cash and two sureties who were required to deposit Rs. 3000/- in cash. If such sureties were not available the revisionist could be enlarged on bail on the condition that he will have to deposit Rs. 9000/- in cash and then only he could be enlarged on bail. He was taken into custody and sent to jail as he failed to deposit such amount. Aggrieved by that decision, he preferred this revision and has been bailed out by this Court on 21-8-1981. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) THE contention put forward on behalf of revisionist is that Section 445 of Code of Criminal Procedure which permit a court to accept such deposit for a sum of money or Government promissory note to such amount as the court or officer may fix in lieu of executing such bonds simply provides a concession to the accused and does not empower the court to order such deposit in cash as a condition precedent to enlarge him on bail. Obviously, such deposit of money cannot be done in cases where a person is bound down to execute a bond for good behaviour. This salutary provision was meant to help the accused who was a stranger to the place where such order was drawn. This provision does not authorise a demand of cash by the Magistrate. There are several authorities on this point but I may simply refer to a judgment of this Court reported in R. R. Chari v. Emperor, 49 CrLJ 1948 page 282 which posited:- "Criminal PC (1898), Ss. 499 and 513-Demand of cash security is illegal. The language of Sec. 499 makes it perfectly clear that what that section contemplates is the furnishing of a personal bond by the accused person and a bond by one or more sufficient sureties. The accused as well as the sureties have, therefore, to execute only bonds which are sufficient in the mind of the Magistrate 'for the amount which he might have fixed. Section 513 also makes it clear that the Magistrate is not bound to accept cash, but may permit an accused person to deposit a sum of money in lieu of executing a personal bond and giving surety of some persons. That section, however, does not authorise a demand of cash by a Magistrate." ;