Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS is an application by Chiranjilal and Har Sukh (hereinafter to be described as sureties) to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tonk, forfeiting the surety bonds filed by these sureties, and ordering the realisation of the amount of the bonds from them.
(2.) A criminal case was pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tonk, against one Sheel Sagar under secs. 307/147 I. P. C. The accused was ordered to be released on bail, and the sureties executed surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 250/- each. On one of the dates fixed the accused did not appear before the Court, and the learned Magistrate called upon the sureties to show cause why the bonds be not forfeited and the security money be not realised from them. The sureties filed their objections, but the bonds were ultimately forfeited on the 20th of November, 1950, and the Court made an order to recover the security money by attachment and sale of the immovable property of the sureties. Against the order of the Magistrate, the sureties filed an appeal in the court of District Magistrate, Tonk, but it was dismissed. They went in revision to the Court of Additional Sessions judge, Tonk, but the revision met with the same fate. Now they have come in revision to this Court. It was argued by the learned counsel for the sureties that under sec. 499 Cr. P. C. , it was imperative that the place where the accused was to attend should have been specified in the bail bond. This was not done, and, therefore, the sureties were not liable for the absence of the accused. A ruling of the Allahabad High Court reported in Brahma Nand Misra vs. Emperor (1) (A. I. R. 1939 All. 682.) as well as a ruling of the Nagpur High Court reported in Emperor vs. Chintaram (2) (A. I. R. 1936 Nagpur 243.) were relied upon. It was decided by the Allahabad High Court that "the provisions laid down in sec. 499 as to nature and contents of the bail bond are imperative. The mentioning of a definite Court before which the accused person is to appear is an essential condition of such a bond. Hence no proceedings can be taken under sec. 514 on a bond executed by the surety alone and which mentions no definite Court and time before which the accused was to appear. " In the Nagpur case it was held by Vivian Bose, J. that - "bail proceedings are special proceedings about which there are specific provisions in the Code and they must be strictly followed. Sec. 499 states chat the time and place at which the accused is to appear must be mentioned in the bond and Cl. (2) sec. 499 says that if the accused is to appear in some other Court the bond must expressly say so. It is not open to the Court to depart from these provisions. Where therefore there is no mention in a surety bond of the Court in which the accused is directed to appear and all that is mentioned is that the surety undertakes to produce the accused in 'the Court at B till the decision', it is impossible to enforce a vague and slovenly bond of this character. What the surety himself thought about his liability under the bond is immaterial, for the terms of the surety bond have to be determined by the language used in the bond itself. Also, it is not for the surety to show that the bond is illegal but for the Crown to show that the document, which it wishes to enforce against him, is one which can be so enforced under the law. " The learned counsel for the State argued that the two rulings did not apply to the facts of the present case. It was argued that in those cases, the accused did not appear in some courts other than those in which the bond was taken, whereas in the present case he did not appear in the very court in which the bond was taken. It is true, but as has been observed by Vivian Bose, J. , it is not material as to what the surety himself thought or should have thought about his liability under the bond, but it is the terms of the surety bond which have to be determined by the language used in the bond itself. It may be that in the present case the surety might have known that the accused was to appear in the very court in which the bond was taken, but the question is whether this is the liability which he has taken on the language of the bond. It is imperative under sec. 499 that the time and place when and where the accused was to appear should be mentioned in the bond. No place has been mentioned in the present bonds where the accused was to appear. Simply on the supposition that the sureties ought to have known that the accused was to appear before the very court before which the bonds were taken, the bonds cannot be enforced in the face of the express language of sec. 499. I do not think that the order of the Magistrate was correct. The application is allowed, and the order dated the 20th November, 1950, for the recovery of Rs. 250/- from each of the sureties and for the issuing of the attachment warrants is set aside. . ;