- (1.) THIS is an application in revision against an order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhilwara, forfeiting the personal bond of the petitioner Narain for failure to put in his appearance in that court.
(2.) THE material facts are these. It appears that the petitioner was being prosecuted in the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate for an offence under the Dinner Control Order. THE case was fixed for the 30th April. 1951, when the petitioner failed to attend. On that date the learned Magistrate passed an order that the matter of the forfeiture of the personal and surety bonds of the petitioner be put up on the 18th May 1951. Nothing appears to have been done on that date and the case was fixed for the 6th June, 1951. On the 6th June, the accused was present but the case was not proceeded with and it was adjourned to 27th June, 1951. On that date also the accused was present but the case made no headway and it was ordered to be put up on the 9th July, 1951. On the later date, the accused was again absent and the learned Magistrate passed an order which to my mind is not quite clear but its effect was to forfeit the personal bond of the accused and also that of his surety Bakhtawar. THE learned Magistrate clearly stated, however, that it would be too harsh to forfeit the entire amount of the bond viz. , Rs. 1500/- and so he directed that a sum of Rs. 200/- only, be forfeited. THE learned Magistrate further directed that in case the amount was not recovered from the accused, it be recovered from his surety. THE accused thereafter went in revision to the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, who upheld the order of the learned Magistrate. This is a revision against the latter order. It may be pointed out at the outset that the order under Sec. 514 Cr. P. C. under which the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate had acted in this case was appealable according to sec. 515 Cr. P. C. Instead of an appeal having been filed to the District Magistrate in accordance w;th sec. 515, a revision was preferred to the learned Sessions Judge. This was not in accordance with law. I am of opinion, however that a remand to the Dis-trict Magistrate, at this stage, will not serve any useful purpose and will cause unnecessary delay. The entire matter has come to the notice of this Court and its power to revise an order which is altogether erroneous, apart from the power vested in the District Magistrate under sec. 15 is unquestioned and cannot be taken away, and 1, therefore, propose to decide the case in this Court. Now, according to sec. 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the court by which a bond under the Code of Criminal Procedure had been taken that such bond has been forfeited, it is the duty of the court to record the grounds of proof of the forfeiture. Its further duty is then to call upon the person bound |by such bond to pay the penalty thereof or! to show cause why it should not be paid. If the person or persons bound by the bond do not pay the penalty or show sufficient cause, the court then may proceed to recover the same by coersive process. It is regrettable that the learned Magistrate made a flagrant breach of the provisions of sec. 514 in dealing with this case. On the 30th April, 1951, when the default first took place, the Magistrate merely passed an order that the case be put up on a later date and thereafter nothing was done and eventually when the matter came before him again on the 9th July, 1951, he not only forfeited the bond but passed a final order without giving any notice to the accused to pay the penalty or to show cause. This notice was mandatory and a failure in this respect cannot be cured under the provisions of sec. 536 Cr. P. C. See Punamchand vs. The State (1 ). When the matter went up before the learned Sessions Judge, he seemed to entertain the opinion that as the accused was present on subsequent dates of hearing (that is, after the 30th April, 1951), he must be presumed to posses the knowledge of this order and, therefore, no interference with the order of the learned Magistrate had been, in the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, called for. He also thought that a sum of Rs. 200/- only out of the bond-money had been ordered to be forfeited and that was by no means harsh. All this, however, in my judgment, is incorrect. The presence of the accused in court, when no notice to show cause under Sec. 514 Cr. P. C. was given, is of no avail and when a notice under that section is compulsory, the mere fact that the entire amount of the bond money has not been ordered to be recovered but only a fraction thereof is entirely beside the point. Before any recovery can be made or ordered from the accused, he is entitled to get a notice from the court to show cause and that has admittedly not been done in this case. The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible that the orders of the courts below cannot be maintained. Consequently, I allow this revision, set aside the orders of the courts below and hereby direct that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate will proceed to deal with the case according to law in the light of the observations made above. .;