JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Kapoor Chand was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, for the offence under section 3 read with sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, on a complaint filed by the Enforcement Officer. The Enforcement Officer at the time of checking the shop of the petitioner had seized 47 bags of wheat and other articles on April 24, 1969. The articles so seized including wheat weighing 5311 Kg. and 250 gms. were given in supurtginama to Tara Ram non-petitioner No. 2 who is said to be the Munira of the petitioner at that time. Tara Ram had promised to produce the articles in the Court or wherever required and on failure to do so to pay the amount of Rs. 5500/-. Kapoor Chand petitioner was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for contravention of conditions No. 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the Licence issued under the Rajasthan Food grains Dealers Licensing Order 1964 and was sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 500/-. By the same judgment he was also convicted for the contravention of Cl. 3 of the Rajasthan (Display of price and Stock of Essential Commodities) Order 1966 and a fine of Rs. 500/- was imposed on him. The articles so seized were ordered to be returned to the accused petitioner after the expiry of the period of appeal. 2. While the trial was still on, an application was filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on May 18, 1973 by the petitioner to the effect that there is apprehension of Supurdgar Tara Ram disposing of the wheat bags and therefore, Court should take possession of the wheat bags from him. Notice was issued to Tara Ram by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Tara Ram came with a plea that he had taken wheat on Supurdginama in his capacity as Munim of Kapoor Chand and latter has disposed of the property for which former is not answerable. It was also alleged in the reply that the entries in that connection were made in the account books of the shop of Kapoor Chand The case than went to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate who by his order dated September 4, 1974 directed Kapoor Chand to produce his account books for the relevant period. On Kapoorchands failure to do so search warrant was issued for production of the account books but without any result. On Kapoorchands failure to do so search warrant was issued for production of the account books but without any result. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated November 23, 1976 held Tara Ram personally liable for the production of the articles given to him or in lieu a sum of Rs. 5509/- in view of the wordings of the Supurdginama. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate therefore, issued warrant for the recovery of that amount from Tara Ram. Being aggrieved by that order Tara Ram preferred an appeal in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi by his judgment dated January 27, 1977 allowed the appeal holding that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to proceed under section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Old) as the bond was not executed before the Court. 3. Being dissatisfied by the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, petitioner Kapoor Chand has preferred this revision petition in this Court. 4. Mr. S.L. Mardia, learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the legality of the appellate judgment on the ground that the order for return of bags of wheat was passed by in favour of Kapoor Chand hence he was a necessary party in the appellate proceedings and the Court should not have proceeded in the matter without impleading him as party to the proceedings. 5. Mr. H.N. Calla, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Mridul Jain, learned counsel for Tara Ram non-petitioner No. 2 strongly controverted this contention by submitting that Kapoor Chand was not a party to the bond and therefore, he cannot as of right claim to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. His locus-standi in this Court to challenge the judgment of the appellate court has been attacked. 6. The Supurdginama was executed in favour of the Enforcement Officer. As to whether the Court had jurisdiction to enforce that Supurdginamaor not, I will discuss a little later. For the present subject point it to say that even in cases of forfeiture of bonds executed in the Court or with the directions of the Court, the matter is between the Court and the executor. As to whether the Court had jurisdiction to enforce that Supurdginamaor not, I will discuss a little later. For the present subject point it to say that even in cases of forfeiture of bonds executed in the Court or with the directions of the Court, the matter is between the Court and the executor. I am, therefore, of the opinion that Kapoor Chand was not a necessary party to the appellate proceedings and the order of the learned appellate Court is not vitiated for Kapoor Chand not being impeded as a party. 7. So far as the locus-standi of the Kapoor Chand in the present revision petition is concerned, he has came to point out some illegality which in his view the appellate Court has committed and therefore, he cannot be sent out of Court only because he was not a party in the appellate proceedings. 8. Mr. Mardia, strenuously contended that there was a recitation in the bond Ex. 3 that the wheat would be produced in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sirohi or at any other place on being asked to do so on May 20, 1969 or any other date fixed and therefore, the Court in which the proceedings of the criminal case were pending had jurisdiction to enforce the bond. It has also been urged that because the forfeiture of the bond was not under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Old), the appeal under section 515 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (Old) could not have been legally entertained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi. 9. On the other hand Mr. Jains emphasis is that as the bound was not executed before the Court or under its order provisions of Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Old) were rightly held to be not applicable. According to the learned counsel there being no other provision in the Code the appellate Court has rightly held that the order might have been passed under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Old) and therefore, there was nothing illegal in entertaining the appeal under section 515 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Old). 10. According to the learned counsel there being no other provision in the Code the appellate Court has rightly held that the order might have been passed under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Old) and therefore, there was nothing illegal in entertaining the appeal under section 515 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Old). 10. So far as the entertain ability of the appeal is concerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has discussed this point and has arrived at a conclusion that though no specific provision of law has been mentioned in the order of forfeiture,it appears to have been passed under the provisions of Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Old) and therefore, the aggrieved party had no other recourse but to prefer an appeal under section 515 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Old). This opinion of the learned Judge is based on sound reasonings and does not call for any interference. 11. The most important point for consideration in this case is whether the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had any jurisdiction to order the compliance of the bond Ex.2, executed by Tara Ram in favour of the Enforcement Officer. It is pertinent to note that this bond was executed on April 24, 1969 immediately after the seizure of the bags of wheat and the Court was nowhere in the picture at the time. 12. Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Old) deals with the procedure on forfeiture of bond by the Court before whom their bond under that Code had been taken. 13. That being the position a bond executed by Tara Ram in favour of the Enforcement Officer, at his direction, cannot be said to be a bond executed, under the Code and therefore, the learned appellate Judge, in my opinion, has arrived at a correct conclusion that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to forfeit the amount of the bond. 14. The question regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to enforce the liability undertaken through a bond executed out side the Court came for consideration before their Lordship of the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar Bhartia v. The State of Assam , AIR 1952 SC 405 . In that case the security bond was taken from the accused not by the Court but by the Procurement Inspector for production of the property before the Court. In that case the security bond was taken from the accused not by the Court but by the Procurement Inspector for production of the property before the Court. In those circumstances, their Lordships were pleased to opinions that under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Old) action can be taken only when the bond is taken by the Court under the provisions of the Code, such as s. 91 for appearance, the several security sections or those relating to bail. 15. In that case also there was the undertaking to produce the property in the Court just as in the present case still the bond was not considered to be a bond executed before the Court. 16. The principle enunciated in the case(supra) was followed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Anwar Ahmad v. State of U.P., 1975 CAR 341 (SC). The bond for production of the Car seized during the course of investigation was executed before a police officer. Discussing the provisions of Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Old), their Lordships were pleased to hold that section clearly enjoins that a bond can be forfeited only if it is executed before a Court or before a Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class. In the facts and circumstances of the case, their Lordships were also pleased to observe that once the car was seized by the police, it was the duty of the police under section 523 to report the matter to the Magistrate and get an order from him regarding the custody of the car. That having not been done, the bond was considered to be not one as contemplated by Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Old) and. is was held that it could not be forfeited. 17. The facts of the case on hand are almost of similar nature as those of the two cases referred to above. 18. This is not in dispute that the Enforcement Officer did not obtain any order from the Court for entrustment of the property. This being the position, I am in perfect agreement with the learned appellate Court that the bond was not legally enforceable by the Court and the forfeiture by it cannot be justified. 19. Consequently, the revision petition having no merits is dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******