K.L.Sharma - (1.) THIS is a Criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 27.9.1994 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1994, Ram Nath v. State whereby he upheld the order dated 14.1.1994 passed by I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur in Criminal Case No. 14 of 1993 and the revisionist was held liable to pay the amount of surety bond.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned order. Both the parties' counsel agreed that this revision may be disposed of at this stage. The learned counsel tor the revisionist has submitted that revisionist had denied before the learned Magistrate that he had stood as surety for the accused Mantar Singh and as such he was not liable to pay the amount of surety bond. It appears from the impugned judgment that the appearance of the revisionist did not tally with the photo of the person who had stood surety and his photo was pasted on the surety bond. It further appears that the Advocate who had identified the person who stood as surety was not recorded by the Magistrate or by the appellate Court. However, this has been admitted by the appellate court in its Judgment that there is some difference in the appearance of the person and the photo of the person pasted on the surety bond. It raises a reasonable doubt about the identity of a person who stood as surety. In my opinion, it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate as well as Appellate Court to make a thorough inquiry about the person who stood as a surety and it was unjust on the part of a Court to fasten a liability of a third person merely on the ground that his name appears as a surety in the Surety bond. Therefore, a direction has to be given to the learned appellate Court to reconsider the question of identity of the surety either by himself or through the learned Magistrate. Consequently this revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.9.1994 passed by learned Session Judge Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1994, Ram Nath v. State and the order of Magistrate, dated 14.1.1994 in Criminal Case No. 14 of 1993 under Section 446, Cr.P.C. are set aside and the case is remanded to Courts below to make a thorough inquiry of such persons including the Advocate who identified the revisionist and to pass a fresh order either by himself or through the Magistrate concerned. Revision allowed.;