Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 530 (KAR)

MUNEER AHMED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

1988-11-28

P.A.KULKARNI

body1988
P. A. KULKARNI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition by Muneer Ahmed is against the order dated 6. 12. 1986 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1986 affirming the order dated 20. 10,1986 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Chikmagalur, in C. C. No. 21 of 1984 calling upon the petitioner to pay the entire indemnity bond amounting to the tune of RI. 30,000. ( 2 ) THE material facts are as under. The Video Case the Recorder and T. V. were seized by the police and were produced before the Court below in CC. No. 21 of 1984. The accused in that case filed an application for the return of the property to him. The Magistrate ordered the release of the property subject to the accused furnishing an indemnity bond and furnishing an indemnity bond by a surety to the tune of Rs. 30,000. The present petitioner executed the indemnity bond as per the order dated 30/12/1983. The V. C. R. and the T. V. were released to the accused. Thereafter the Court issued notice to the accused to produce the properties. The accused appeared on 27/8/1986 and prayed time till 1/9/1986. In the meanwhile, the said Indemnity bond executed by the present surety-petitioner was forfeited by the Court on the ground that the accused did not produce the properties before the Court a5 ordered by it. Thereafter the Court issued a notice to the surety- petitioner dated 8/9/1986 calling upon him to show cause as to why the amount of indemnity bond executed for Rs. 30,000, which had been forfeited should not be recovered from him. The Court below considered the objections raised by the surety petitioner and overruled them and ordered that the entire amount of Rs. 30,000 should be recovered and it accordingly issued a warrant to the surety. The surety-petitioner being aggrieved by this order hall come up with the present revision petition. ( 3 ) THE petitioners Counsel submitted that before forfeiting the indemnity bond, no notice had been given to the surety. ( 4 ) SECTION 446 Cr. P. C. reads as follows; 446 (1) Where a bond under this Code. The surety-petitioner being aggrieved by this order hall come up with the present revision petition. ( 3 ) THE petitioners Counsel submitted that before forfeiting the indemnity bond, no notice had been given to the surety. ( 4 ) SECTION 446 Cr. P. C. reads as follows; 446 (1) Where a bond under this Code. is for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court and it is proved to the satisfaction of that Court, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently can transferred, that the bond had been forfeited. Or where, in respect of any other bond under this Code, it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which the bond was taken or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, or of the Court of any Magistrate of the first class, that the bond has been forfeited. The Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bond by such bond to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, section 446 does not require the issuance of any notice to the surety before the bond is forfeited. The bond is executed In order to see that the properties released in favour of the accused, should be produced by him when called upon by the Court. The very fact that the accused did not produce the properties would result in forfeiture of the Indemnity bond. Therefore, I do not think that any notice prior to forfeiture of the bond, is necessary. ( 6 ) AS required by the latter portion of section 446 (1) the Court below after forfeiting the bond, has issued notice to the surety calling upon him to show cause why the amount of the bond should not be ordered to be recovered from him. The Chief Judicial Magistrate did not accept the explanation given by the surety and has ordered to pay the entire amount of Rs. 30,000. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Sessions Judge affirming the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. ( 7 ) THE petitioners Counsel contended that when the Court below granted time on 1-9-86 another bond from another surety was taken. But at that time the bond had already been forfeited. 30,000. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Sessions Judge affirming the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. ( 7 ) THE petitioners Counsel contended that when the Court below granted time on 1-9-86 another bond from another surety was taken. But at that time the bond had already been forfeited. Therefore, taking of another surety bond from another surety thereafter will not enure to the benefit of the present surety. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, under these circumstances, there Is no merit in the revision petition and it is dismissed.