R.K. Chowdhry, J. - (1.) THIS is an application in revision by one Rameshwar Dayal against an order of forfeiture of bond under Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure, passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate of Faridpur in the district of Bareilly.
(2.) IT appears that a number of persons, including one Umar, were being tried for an offence under Section 60, Excise Act, in the court of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate of Baheri in the said district, and that the applicant stood surety for Umar's appearance in that court and executed a bond in the sum of Rs. 250 as penalty for Umar's non -appearance. On Umar -failing to make his appearance, the Sub -Divisional Magistrate of Baheri called upon the applicant to show cause why the penalty be not paid. The applicant showed cause but the same was not accepted by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate of Faridpur, who passed the following order on 23 -1 -1954. The applicant should deposit Rs. 150 as penalty under the circumstances mentioned in the application. Issue non -bailable warrant against Umar. The penalty should be deposited by 30 -1 -1954. It will be noticed that in passing the above order the Sub -Divisional Magistrate of Faridpur remitted a portion of the penalty and sought to enforce payment in part only. The applicant appealed against this order, but his appeal succeeded only to this extent that there was a further remission of penalty and payment of Rs. 50 was to be enforced. Rameshwar Dayal has now come up in revision to this Court. The sole ground taken here on behalf of the applicant is that the aforesaid order was an order passed without jurisdiction in that it was passed, not by the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Baheri, but by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate of Faridpur. This contention appears to be well -founded in view of the clear provisions of Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant provisions of the section are as follows: (1) Whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which a bond under this Code has been taken, or of the Court of a Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of the First class, or, when the bond is for appearance before a Court, to the satisfaction of such Court, that such bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof, or to show cause why it should not be paid. (2) If sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same by issuing a warrant for the attachment and sale of the movable property belonging to such person or his estate if he be dead. The two clauses are followed by five others the first three of which relate to attachment and imprisonment for realisation of the penalty and to remission of any portion of the penalty.
(3.) THE first clause relates to initiation of proceedings and to the passing of the order of payment of penalty by the person bound by the bond or of his being required to show cause why it should not be paid, and the second to the court proceeding to recover the penalty in case of sufficient cause not being shown and the penalty not being paid. It will be noticed that although the first clause speaks generally of the satisfaction of three kinds of Courts in the matters of initiation of proceedings and the passing of order of payment of penalty, viz. the Court by which a bond under the Code has been taken, the Court of a Presidency Magistrate and a Magistrate of the First class, it speaks of the satisfaction of only one of the said courts in the specific case of a bond for appearance before a Court, namely, the Court before which appearance under the bond is to be made. It follows necessarily that in this specific case "the court" taking proceedings under the second clause to recover the penalty and under the subsequent clauses to pass orders of attachment, imprisonment and remission is the same -the Court, that is, before which appearance under the bond is to be made.;