Bekaru Singh v. State of U. P.

Raghubar Dayal J. possessed sufficient property to stand surety for

Rs. 40,000/-. The Magistrate ordered for th11 verifi.,ation from thA Tebsil and on receipt of the report from the Tohsil, accepted the bond on August 20, J9G8. The Tehsil report, however, indicated tliat the house mentioned in the surety bond and alleged to be worth Re. 60,000/-wae estimated to be worth Rs. 16,07n/-.

The police charge-sheet in the ca.so appears to hav<' reached the Court on August 20, 1958, when summons for the appearance of Ram Nara.in was ordered to be issued for September 1, 1958. The summons was not served. When Ram Narain did not appear on September l, 1958, September 9, and September 23, the Court, on September 24, ordered action under ss. 87 and 88 Cr.P.C. against him and the issun of notices to the sureties to produce him in Court. When he did not appC'ar in Court on October 29, the Court forfeited the personal bond executed by Ram Namin and the bail bonds exe- <mt.ed by th<> surctirs and ordered issue of notice to th1· sm·etics to pay the penalty or show cause !IA to why tho amount hn not recovered from them. Bekam obje<'t,ed to the forfeiture of his surety bond. On April 20, I 95!), the objection was disallowed and t.he learned judicial officer ordered that the amount of Rs. 40,000/-be recovered from his movable pro· porty through attanhmrnt and sale. .Bekaru appealed but his appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. His rovision application to the High Court was also dismissed. Ho h!U! pre-ferred this appeal by special leave.

The main contention for the appellant is that the learned Magistrate should not have accepted Bekaru Singh's surety bond without first taking 1962' action contemplate.d by sub-sections (2) and (3) of s. 502, Cr.P.C. Section 502 reads:- Bekaru Singh v. Stoll of U. P. "( 1) · All or any sureties for the atten-dance and appearance of a person released on Roghubar D4Yal, J. bail may at any time apply to a Magistra.t e to discharge the bond, either wholly or so far as relates to the appJicants.

(2) On such application being made, the Magistrate shall issue his warrant of arreRt directing that the person so rekn.sed be brought, before him.

(3) On the appearance of such person pursuant to the Warrant, or on his voluntary surrender, the Magistrate shall direct the bond to be discharged either wholly or so far as re-lates to the applicant, and shall call upon such person to find other sufficient, sureties, and. i.f he fails to .do so, may commit him to custody."

It is urged that the Magistrate had to issue a warrant for the arrest of Ram Narain when Safir Hussain had prcseuted his application for the dis-charge of his surety bond a.nd that when Ram Narain would have appeared beforo tho Court in execution of tha.t warrant, the Mn.gistrate had to first discharge Safir Hussain's surety bond and only then could have called upon Ram Narain to furni8h other surety. The Magistrate took no such stop and t.herefore could not have legally accepted the surety bonrl offered by Bekaru on July 9, 1958. We do not agree with this contention. These provi-sions of s. 502 are meant for the continuity of the surety bond on the basis of which. an accused has been reloasod on bail till such time that tho accused is before the Court and for taking further action in case the accused desires to offer auother security in place of tho, one. who is to be discharged. They a.re pot condition(:! precedent for th.e a.ooeptance of 196% a fresh surety in place of the earlier one. In the

circumstanceH of the present case, there w11s no Bek1Jra Singli occasion to issue a warrant for the arrest of Ham

v.

Stale of Uc P. Narain on Safir Hussain's applying for the discharge RaghulJor Dayal J. of his surety bond. We do not know in what cir-

c1imstances no particular order was passed on July 7, 1958 on the application of Safir Hussain. Ram Narain who was present in Court that day, may have intimated to the Court that he would offer a fresh surety on July 9. Anywav a fresh surety was offered on that day viz; July 9. Bekaru stood surety. An application on behalf of Ram Narain was presented praying for the acceptance of Bekaru's surety bond in place of Safir Hussain's. In accepting Bekaru's surety bond the Court committed no wrong. It was interested in getting a fresh surety for letting Ram Narain continue on bail. Bakaru offered -the surety bond. His competence to stand surety for Rs. 40,000/- was certified by a Vakil, Sa.fir Hussain's bond therefore stood cancelled and Bekaru's took its place. We do not therefore consider that there was any incompetency in the Magistrate's accepting Bekaru'p surety bond in place of Sa.fir Hussain's.

It is true that Beka.ru's surety bond was forma-lly accepted on August 20, 1958, but that does not matter. Sub-section (l) of s. 499, Cr. P. C. provides that before any person is released on bail bond must be executed by such person and bonds be also executed by sureties for the attendance of that per-son in Court. Sub-section (3) of s.499 is :

"(3) For the purpose of determining whether the sureties are sufficient, the Court may, if it so thinks fit, accept a.ffid~vits in proof of the facts oofitained therein relating to the sufficiency of th" sureties or may make such further enquiry as it deems neces-sary."

When Bek!l>l'u furnished the surety bond he also filed an affidavit stating therein that the house mention.;; 1962 ed in the surety bond wa.s worth over R.s. 40,000/- .

Sri Ahmed Husain Vakil, certified that Bekaru Bek~Singh seae, v. u. post1essed · sufficient property to stand surety for OJ P. tts. 40,000/- . In the circumstanoes, the Magistrate Raghubar Dqyal J. could accept llekaru's surety. bond. Of course the Magistrate could make further enquiry as well and it. was for the purpose of further enquiry that he ordered verification from the Tehsil. Bekaru's bond, in our opinion, was accepted on July 9, subject to further orders on the receipt of the Tehsil report.

Further, Ram Na.rain's continuing on bail is justified by the provisions of t;. GOO, Cr. P. C., once Bekaru's surety 1bond had been filed. Its sub-a. (1) provides that as. soon as the bond has been execut-ed, the person for whose appearance it has been executed shall be releastd. This contemplates that the accused is to be released on the execution of the bonds which should be accepted on their face value in the first instance. Section 501, Cr. P. C. provides for the issue of a warran~ of arrest of the person. so released. on bail if it is subsequently found that through mistake, fraud or otherwise, insufficient sureties had been accepted, or if they afterwards became insufficient. We are therefore of opinion that formal acceptance of Bekaru's surety bond on August 20, 1958 by the Magistrate does not in any way affect Bekaru's liability on that bond from July 9, 1958. Any way, he was liable on that boner for the non-appearance of Ram Narain on a date 13Ubsequent to August 20, 1958.

It may be mentioned that it was urged up to the appeal stage that the surety bond was accepted on the 20th of August 1958 after the Magistrate had known of the absconding of Ram Na.rain. The Courts found against this allegation as there was nu evidenc~

in support of it.

Another point urged is that the surety bond executed by t:;deka.ru Singh did ~ot have on the other 1Uu'2 side the personal bond executed by Ram Narain B1karu Singh and that in the absence of a personal bond by

v. Ram Narain, the surety bonrl executed by Bekaru Slate of U.P. could not be legally accepted. Reliance is placed R.ghubar Dayal J. on the case reported as Brahma Nand v. Emperor (1)

and a few other cases expressing the same view. These cases are distinguishable on facts. In Brahma Nand's case(') the accused himself had not executed any bond and therefore it was held that the surety bonds could not be forfeited. In the present case Ram Narain executed bond on June 26, 1958. Kasbi, one of the sureties, executed t.he surety bond printed at the back of the bond execut-ed by Ram Narain. Ram Narain had already bond himself to pay Rs. 1,00,000 /- in case he failed to appear in Court when required, Other sureties bond themselves to pay the various ~mounts in case Ram Narain did not appear. Their surety bond are good by themselves. Bekaru's surety bond is there-fore as effective and legal as Ka11hi's bond which is just on the back of Ram Na.rain's bond. It is not required by any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure that all the sureties should execute the bond printed at the back of the form on which the accused execute the personal bond or that the accused must execute as many bonds in identical terms as there are surety bonds by indivi-dual sureties. The mere fact that Form No. XLII, Schedule V. Criminal Procedure Code, prints the contents of the two bonds, one to be executed by the accused and the other by the surety, together, does not mean that both these bonds should be on the same sheet of paper.

We are, therefore, of opinion that Bekaru's bond can be forfeited if Ram Narain docs not comply with the terms of his bond executed on June :!6, 1958 and that Ram Narain had not to exeoute a (I) A. I. R. 1939 All. 682.

bond afresh when Bekaru furnished fresh surety in 1962 place of Sa.fir Hussain's surety bond. We therefore B 1koru Singh hold that the appellant's bond has been rightly v. forfeited ou the non-appearance of Ram Narain in Sta~o/U.P· Court. W c therefore dismiss the appeal. J. Raghubar D~Yal Appeal dismisse.d·.

VITHAL KRISHNAJI NIVENDKAH

1962 v.

March2'1,

PARDUMAN RAM SINGH & ANOTHER

(J. L. KAPu.& and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Rent Oontrot-Donation received by a person for charitable trU8~Wlien an offence-Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lo<Iging House . Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bom. 57 of 1947) s. 18 (1).

.

The appellant was the President, Truste(' and Secretary of a Sangh, which was a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The appel!ant agreed to grant the lease of a residential block, which was owned by the Sangh, at a monthly rent of Rs. 85.00 in favour of the first respondent on payment of Rs. 3,251 /- as donation to the builci-i~ fund ~f the said Sangh, which was paid before the first respondent actually occupied the premises. The appellant was convicted under s. 18 (1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates 1Control Act, 1947, by the Presidency Magistrate who held that the amount was received as premium, as a condition precedent for letting the premises. On appeal the High Court held that the aforesaid payment even if it did not come within the expression "premium or other like sum"

for granting the tenancy of the premises, it was received by the appellant as "consideration other than the standard rent"

in respect of the grant;of a lease of the premises and dismissed the appeal. The appellant came up by special leave in appeal to the Supreme Court.

The question is whether a sum of money paid ostensibly as a donation by a person to the person acting on behalf of the landlord, a which was a cha1itable trust, in respect of the grant

lease of the premises, came within the expression "fine, premium or other Jike 'sum or deposit or any consideration other than the standard rent" in sub·s. (1) of • 18 of the Act.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 171of1959.

Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 3, 1959, of the Allahabad High Comt. in Criminal Revision No. 1080 of 1959. 0. P. /;,ma and A.G. Rat,anaparkhi, for the appellant.

G. 0. Mathnr and 0. P. Lal, for th(' H'~J•CIJ· dent.

1962. March 26. The Judgment of the Court. was delivered by Roghnb •• , Dayal J. RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-One Ram Narain was

ordered by the High Court of Allahabad, on June 9, 1958, to furnish a personal bond for a lakh or rupees and three sureties, two in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- each and one in the sum of Rs. 20,000/· in respect of the case against him for having com' mittC'd criminal breach of trust with rPspect, to the funds of tht1 Pikaura Co.opnative Society. He was to furnish the persona.I bond and the sureties within three weeks from the dat<~ of the order. It B1karu Singh . was further ordered: '" State of U. P, "The 11pplicant should fornif~h the per-sonal bond and sureties as directed above Raghubor DaJal J, within th~·ee weeks from today and during that period he will not be arrested. If he does not furnish the bonds and sureties within this period he will be liable to be ro-arrtlsted and detained till the necessary bonds and sureties are furnished."

It may be mentioned that Ram Narain had previously furnished a personal bond and sureties in connection with the embezzlement alleged to have been committed by him and that the necessity for a fresh order for furnishing personal bond and sureties arose on account of the police submitting more than one charge-sheet with respect to the a.mount embezzled and it was felt that the original security furnished might not be effective.

On June 26, 1958, Ram Narain executed a persoual bond for Rs. 1,00,000/-and offered the required sureties. Kashi stood surety for Rs. 40,000/-, Safir Hussain for Rs. 40,000/· and Smt. Sona for Rs. 20,000/- resp.ectively. The sur~ty bond by Safir Hussain was not duly verified as he was in hospital at that time, but when it was put up to Safir Hussain for verification on July 12, 1958 he refused to verify it.

Prior to this, on July 7, 1958, Safir Hussain filed a.n application before the Magistrate praying that his surety bo~ds in connection with the embez-zlement of Rs. 40,000/-and Rs. 80,000/-be cancelled.

Ram Narain was. present in Court that day. No pa.rticu]ar order was passed on this application of Safir Hussain.

On July 9, 1958, an application on behalf of ltaui Narain was filed stating that Beka.ru's surety 1982 be accepted in place of Safir Hussain's surety.

lklmru filed the surety bond offering himself to n~1:0.1u Singh siand surety for Rs. 40,000/.for Ram Na.rain's appe-

v.

St•te of U. P. arance in Court. He was identified by Sri Ahmad

Husain, Vakil, who certified that Bekaru Singh