- (1.)THIS is an application in revision arising out of proceedings under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The present applicant Malkhan Singh and one other person Gairamji had stood surety for Phula alias Phool Singh against whom was pending a case under Sections 380 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Phoola appeared in Court upto 23rd February, 1966, but not thereafter. Proceedings under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were thereafter taken up by the Magistrate. The personal and surety bonds were forfeited. Though show cause notices were directed to be issued, they were in fact not. The ultimate order passed by the Magistrate required the sureties to produce the accused by a certain date and they were also told that if they failed to do so, action would be taken against them. It was reported ultimately that the accused had been shot dead in some encounter with the police. Proceedings against the sureties, however, continued and they deposited the amount of their bonds in cash when distress warrants were issued against them. The applicant and the other surety Chiranji went up In appeal to the Sessions Judge under Section 515 of the Code and challenged the correctness of the order made against them. The Sessions Judge has found that the Magistrate had not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 514 of the Code and consequently held that the order regarding the recovery of the amount from the sureties was illegal. He, therefore, allowed the appeals, set aside the order passed by the Magistrate, but thereafter gave the direction that :--"the files are sent back to the Court below with the direction to dispose of the cases in accordance with the observations made above".
(2.)MALKHAN Singh has come up in revision against this order and what was urged on behalf of the applicant is that the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to give any such direction to the Magistrate, meaning thereby that all what the Sessions Judge could do was either to allow the appeal or dismiss the appeal, but he could not direct the Magistrate to proceed against the applicant afresh in accordance with the observations made by him in the body of the judgment, which means that he could not remand the case for rehearing.
(3.)THE point raised on behalf of the applicant is beset with some difficulty and there appears to be no direct decision on this point.