D.D. Seth, J. - (1.) THIS application in revision arises out of the following circumstances. Natha accused was sent up for trial Under Section 409, IPC. The learned Magistrate 1st class, Budaun, by his order dated 1st March 1967, committed the accused to the court of Sessions and in the court of Sessions 8 -4 -1967 was fixed as the date of hearing. On that date Natha accused was absent. Natha, it may be stated, was on bail and Lakhan Singh and Khamani, the present Applicants in this revision, stood surety for, him and executed a surety bond. Notice issued to the two sureties for producing the accused on 8 -4 -1967 were served upon them but inspite of that the accused was not produced. The learned 1st Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge on 8 -4 -1967 ordered that the surety bonds furnished by Lakhan Singh and Khamani be forfeited and issued notices to them to show cause why the amount of their respective bonds should not be realised from them. By his order dated 13 -6 -1967 the learned 1st Temporary Sessions Judge considered how much amount the sureties should be ordered to pay. He took into consideration that the accused appeared subsequently and was tried and was acquitted by the Sessions court. Under those circumstances the learned 1st Temporary Sessions Judge ordered both the Sureties to pay Rs. 300/ - each instead of Rs. 1200/ - each for which they had executed the surety bond. The learned Judge did not order forfeiture of the personal bond of the accused as he was I not served for 8 -4 -1967. It is against this order that the present application in revision has been filed.
(2.) I have heard Sri S.S. Alim, Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants and Begam Rahman, appearing for the State. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants made only one submission and that was that the surety bonds were executed by the Applicants before the Judicial Officer, Dataganj, district Budaun and as the Ist Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge was neither the court by which the bond was taken nor the Presidency Magistrate nor Magistrate of the 1st class the surety bonds could not be forfeited. Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the procedure for forfeiture of bonds. Sub -section (1) of Section 514 is relevant in connection with the present revision. That sub -section reads 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. Relying upon Sub -section (1) of Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure, the Learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the surety bonds could be forfeited only by the court which took the bonds or by a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the 1st Class as required by the first paragraph of Sub -section (1) of Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure. Begam Rahman, on the other[hand, submitted that power of forfeiting the surety bonds rested with the court which was dealing with the case which in this case was the court of the 1st Temporary Sessions Judge. According to Begam Rahman after the sessions trial began the matter was no longer before any Magistrate and if a date for appearance was fixed by the learned Sessions Judge it was he alone who could forfeit the bonds.
(3.) IN the instant case the surety bonds are on record and they show that the sureties undertook to produce the accused on every date of hearing before the, Judicial Officer, Dataganj or the court to which the case may be transferred or before a court of sessions. It was held in Bunyad Husain v. State, 1958 AWR 858: An analysis of the section shows that two different types of bonds are contemplated and different courts are empowered to forfeit the bonds in the two different types of cases. The first paragraph of Sub -section (1) of Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates those cases where a bond is taken but it is not for appearance before any particular court. The second paragraph contemplates those cases where the bond is taken for appearance before a particular court. In the first type of cases any first class Magistrate can forfeit the bond, but in the second class of cases only that court can forfeit the bond before whom it| was undertaken that an accused person would be produced.... Where the language of the bond shows that the sureties undertook to produce the accused before a court and not in any particular court, it amounts to an undertaking to produce him before any court and such a case falls within the orbit of the first paragraph of Sub -section (1) of Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure. It is only in such a case that some other court, apart from the court which took the bonds, provided he is a Magistrate of the first class can take action against the persons who executed the bonds because they failed to fulfil their undertaking. But where the words of the bond indicate that the surety only undertook to produce an accused person before a particular court, it is the second paragraph of Sub -section (1) of Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure which is applicable and only that court which took the bond can forfeit it.;