- (1.) THIS is a revision against an order of forfeiture of a bond and directing realisation of the penalty.
(2.) ONE Shaukat was challaned in the court of City Magistrate for an offence under sec. 406 of the Penal Code. He was directed to be released on bail by the City Magistrate on 24th of July, 1951, and a bond for appearing in the court of City Magistrate on 25th of July, 1951, and subsequent dates was executed by the accused and his surety Allahbux. The case was, thereafter transferred to the court of First Class Extra Magistrate, Jodhpur. On the 25th July, 1951 the Extra Magistrate ordered for a fresh bond and surety and rightly so as the previous bond and surety was for attendance in another court. The bond was executed by the accused and the surety on the 25th of July, 1951, on a printed form. This form was slightly different from form No. 25 in the Criminal Procedure Code. The bond was executed by the accused and the surety and the relevant portion of it is as follows: "i, Shaukat Khan do hereby bind myself to appear on date (. . . . . . . .), month (. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) (year. . . . . . . . .) at time (. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) in the court of First Class Extra Magistrate, Jodhpur City, to answer the charge and shall continue to be present unless prohibited by the court or otherwise, and in case of my making default therein, I bind myself to forfeit and deposit the sum of Rs. 1000/ -. Dated 25th July, 1951. " "i, Allahbux declare myself surety for the above-mentioned Shaukat Khan that he would attend the court of the First Class Extra Magistrate, Jodhpur on date (. . . . . .) month (. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) year (. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) and shall continue to be present until ordered otherwise by the court, and in case of his making default therein, I hereby bind myself to forfeit and deposit Rs. 1000/ -. Dated 25th July, 1951. " The next date of hearing was 29th August, 1951, and the accused Shaukat did not present himself in court. Somebody on his behalf presented a sick certificate and the case was adjourned to 18th September, 1951. On the 18th September, the bond was declared forfeited and a notice was issued to the surety to show cause why the entire amount should not be recovered. The surety did not present himself on the date fixed and the court ordered for recovery of the entire amount of the bond on 17th October, 1951. After waiting for a period of seven days, the court issued a warrant for attachment of his property whereupon the surety appeared on 29th of December, 1951. According to the report of the Nazir, no movable property of the surety was available and the court ordered the surety to be put in civil jail for a period of four months. The surety filed an appeal and the learned District Magistrate reduced the amount to be recovered to Rs. 250/ -. The surety has filed this revision It is contended on his behalf by Mr. Vishen Lal, advocate, that the bond was vague inasmuch as the date when the accused was to appear in court was not mentioned in it and the form had been left blank at that place. It was argued that in case the time for the appearance of the accused is not mentioned, the bond is void and no penalty can be levied. Learned deputy Government Advocate opposes the revision and it is argued that the contents of the bond following the blank spaces amount to an agreement that the accused shall remain present on every date of hearing, and, therefore, if he was absent on the 29th of August, the forfeiture was correct. It has been held in a number of cases that the provisions of the bond are to be construed strictly. In Emperor vs. Chintaram (1) (A. I. R. 1936 Nag. 243.), it was held that the bail proceedings were special proceedings about which there were specific directions in the Code and they must be strictly followed. In that case the surety undertook to produce the accused in one particular court but the absence of the accused was from another Court. It was held that the forfeiture of the bond was improper. In Brahma Nand vs. Emperor (2) (A. I. R. 1939 All. 682.), the bond did not contain the time or the court: in which the accused undertook to appear, and relying on Chintaram's case it was held that the bond was not liable to forfeiture. In Fatehchand Wadhumal vs. Emperor (3) (A. I. R. 1940 Sind 136.), the bond was on a printed form and. the date on which the accused was to attend the court was not specified; but there were words "or on such date as he may hereafter be required to attend. " The bond was forfeited when the surety failed to produce the accused after two days' notice. It was held that "if no date is specified in the bond but the day is to be a day of which notice is to be given thereafter, reasonable notice must be given to enable both the accused and the surety to attend. " Another case which is cited in the Criminal Procedure Code by B. B. Mitra in paragraph 1317 is 1885 Allahabad Weekly Notes 44 in which it was held that if a bail bond fixes neither the time for the production of a person nor the place of appearance, it cannot be forfeited for the non-appearance of the person. The original authority is not available. From a consideration of these authorities, it is to my mind quite clear that it is imperative for those who are in charge of receiving bonds to be very careful in complying with the provisions of law since the bonds are to be strictly enforced. If the time and place is left blank, as in this case, the bond becomes vague. The subsequent words that the accused would continue to be present would only be applicable if the first day on which he is to attend is mentioned in the document. In my opinion, the bond was void on the ground of vagueness and the surety did not incur any liability by the non-attendance of the accused on the date of hearing. The revision is accepted and the order of forfeiture of the bond is set aside. . ;