Rajeshwari Prasad, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Sri Ram Datt against the order of the District Magistrate, Mainpuri, dated 1 -1 -1965, by which the learned District Magistrate directed that the personal bond dated 28 -11 -1954, executed by the Petitioner before the police Sirsaganj be forfeited to the State. It was also directed that the sum of Rs. 500/ - be realised from the Petitioner by way of penalty.
(2.) FROM the aforesaid order of the learned District Magistrate, there was an appeal which was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge. The appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the learned District Magistrate was maintained. It is against those orders that the present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner in this Court. It appears that on 24 -11 -1964 a bailable warrant was issued against the Petitioner by the court at Mainpuri. On 28 -11 -1964 the police Sirsaganj served the bailable warrant on the Petitioner and the Petitioner executed a personal bond on the same (sic) i.e. 28 -11 -1964. He failed to appear on 28 -11 -1964, as a result of which the order now sought to be revised was passed by the learned District Magistrate. The Petitioner filed a medical certificate to show that he was ill on 28 -11 -1964 and that it was on account of this that he could not appear in court on that date. Subsequently the Petitioner did appear in court on 19 -12 -1964. The two courts below have taken the view that the Petitioner had made default in appearance in court on 28 -11 -1964 and his explanation that he was ill on that due so as to be not in a position to attend the court on that date has not been accepted by the two courts below. In my revisional jurisdiction, therefore, I am not called upon to interfere with that finding.
(3.) IN support of the revision petition what has been urged before me is that the bond in question was taken by the police and not by Court and it is suggested that the bond was one Under Section 170 Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has therefore urged that if that be so, then there could not be a forfeiture of the bond within the meaning of Section 514 Code of Criminal Procedure and the question of payment of penalty did not arise. I have perused the bond itself which is on the record and it is clear that it purports to be one Under Section 170 Code of Criminal Procedure. It is true that a case was pending against the Petitioner in the court at that time and a bailable warrant had been issued by that court. In compliance with the bailable warrant the bond in question was executed by the Petitioner Unfortunately, however, the bond itself purports to be one Under Section 170 Code of Criminal Procedure. The question of forfeiture and recovery of penalty must be decided with reference to the bond itself and not with reference to the events which constituted the background for such a bond. If, therefore, the bond purports to be one Under Section 170 Code of Criminal Procedure it is obvious that the provisions of Section 514 could not be applicable. The language of Sections 513 and 514 Code of Criminal Procedure make that position quite obvious. The Supreme Court also took similar view in the case of Rameshwar Bhartia v. State of Assam : AIR 1952 S.C. 405. Care should have been taken to obtain a correct document from the Petitioner and it has become necessary for me to set aside the order of the courts below only on account of the fact that appropriate bond was not taken from the Petitioner.;