# [1972] 1 S.C.R. 1084

- **Citation:** [1972] 1 S.C.R. 1084
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-10-14
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 239 of 1968
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, D. G. Palekar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1972-1-s-c-r-1084-5328
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Surety Bond-To Produce truck "i11henever ordered by the court''-
Executed in one Sub-Divisional Magistrate's
Court-Forfeited by another Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court-Plea of jurisdiction cannot be
raised for first .tin1e in the High Court-Plea one interlaced with question's
of fact-Construction of bond.
The appellant declared himself surety in the court of a Sub-Div1siona>
Magistrate and bound himself to produce a truck "whenever ordered by
the court" to produc1~ the same.
He was given notice to produc\! the
truck by another Sub-Divisional Magist'rate in the same district and when
he failed to produce the same the Magistrate passed an order forfeitin.o
the surety bond and directing the realisation of the amount covered by
the bond as fine.
In his revision application before the High Court the
appellant took a plea that the bond could be forfeited only by the court
in which it was executed.
The High Court did not allow the plea to be
raised on the ground that the plea was not raised either before the Magistrate or before the Sessions Jud2e.
Dismissing the app,,al to this Court,
HELD : (I) The High Court rightly refused the appellant permission
to ulrge the ground as to want of jurisdiction.
Such a plea of jurisdiction
is interlaced with questions of fact.
It may be that the case was transferred, or that a particular court was ·abolished, or that allocation ol business was changed or redistributed.
The records indicate many probabili·
tics and that was why the High Court declined to go into the question.
!1087 BJ
(2) Even if the appellant were permitted to raise this question m th<
present case without any question of fact and purely on the constiu...:tion
of the bond. it would appear that the appellant bound himself to produce
the truck whenever ordered by the court to produce the same.
Time
was no undertaking to produce the truck in
a
particular
cour~. The
undertaking was to the court of the Magistrate and the Magistrate exercises jurisdiction in the whole district under _s. 12 of the Code of Cri1ninal
Procedure. , The word 'court' in the bond in the present case m~ans the
1-fagistrate's cou:rt which dealt with the case.
Furthermore, ihc bonJ
provided that in case of default the appellant bound himself to forfeit to
the Government the amount covered by the bond. [1088 CJ
Ballc.bhdas Motiram Gupta v. Emperor, A.LR. 1943 Born. 178. held
inapplicable.

## Text

1084
RAMESH CHANDRA
v.-
STATE OF U.P.
October 14, 1971
(A. N. RAY AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.]
Surety Bond-To Produce truck "i11henever ordered by the court''-
Executed in one Sub-Divisional Magistrate's
Court-Forfeited by another Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court-Plea of jurisdiction cannot be
raised for first .tin1e in the High Court-Plea one interlaced with question's
of fact-Construction of bond.
The appellant declared himself surety in the court of a Sub-Div1siona>
Magistrate and bound himself to produce a truck "whenever ordered by
the court" to produc1~ the same.
He was given notice to produc\! the
truck by another Sub-Divisional Magist'rate in the same district and when
he failed to produce the same the Magistrate passed an order forfeitin.o
the surety bond and directing the realisation of the amount covered by
the bond as fine.
In his revision application before the High Court the
appellant took a plea that the bond could be forfeited only by the court
in which it was executed.
The High Court did not allow the plea to be
raised on the ground that the plea was not raised either before the Magistrate or before the Sessions Jud2e.
Dismissing the app,,al to this Court,
HELD : (I) The High Court rightly refused the appellant permission
to ulrge the ground as to want of jurisdiction.
Such a plea of jurisdiction
is interlaced with questions of fact.
It may be that the case was transferred, or that a particular court was ·abolished, or that allocation ol business was changed or redistributed.
The records indicate many probabili·
tics and that was why the High Court declined to go into the question.
!1087 BJ
(2) Even if the appellant were permitted to raise this question m th<
present case without any question of fact and purely on the constiu...:tion
of the bond. it would appear that the appellant bound himself to produce
the truck whenever ordered by the court to produce the same.
Time
was no undertaking to produce the truck in
a
particular
cour~. The
undertaking was to the court of the Magistrate and the Magistrate exercises jurisdiction in the whole district under _s. 12 of the Code of Cri1ninal
Procedure. , The word 'court' in the bond in the present case m~ans the
1-fagistrate's cou:rt which dealt with the case.
Furthermore, ihc bonJ
provided that in case of default the appellant bound himself to forfeit to
the Government the amount covered by the bond. [1088 CJ
Ballc.bhdas Motiram Gupta v. Emperor, A.LR. 1943 Born. 178. held
inapplicable.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 239
of 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
May 17, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision
No. 1130 of 1966.
E. C. Agarwa/a, for the appellant.
0. P. Rana, for the respondent.
A
B
c
D
'
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAMESH CHANDRA V. U.P. STATE (Ray, J.)
I 081>
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byRay, J.
This appeal is by special leave against the' judgment
dated 17 May, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court.
The order
of the Allahabad High Court was passed on a revisiqn application
of the appellallJ against the order dated 28 January, 1966 of the
Civil and Sessions Judge, Agra rejecting the revision against the
order of the Magistrate dated 5 June, 1965 forfeiting the surety
bond of the appella.nt and directing the sum oi Rs. 20,000 be
realised from the appellant.
The bond came to be furnished by the appellant under these
circumstances.
One Kis!ian Lal Gupta made an application for
obtaining custody of truck ~o. RJZ-1724 in the case of State v.
Sua Lal under the Essential Commodities Act in the court of the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kiraoli Kheragarh.
The truck had
been seized by the police on the allegation that it was carrying
essential commodities to a prohibited area. The truck wa.s in the
custody of the police at Fatehpur Sikri Police Station.
Oill 16 December, 1963 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Kiraoli,
Kheragarh, Agra ordered delivery of the truck be given on furnishing two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each with the personal bond
of the like amount.
The prosecution filed a revision against the
order.
The Additional District Magistrate, Kheragarh rejected
the revision application on 1 January, 1964 with the observation
that it was for the Magistrate to decide as to who was to be
given temporary cmtody of the truck and the matter required
clarification.
The prosecution moved that the truck should be
given to the custody of the Manager, Government Roadway' of
the Regional Transport Officer.
Eventually, the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate Kiraoli-Kheragarh on 9 ·January, 1964 ordered that
the truck might be given to the custody of reliable and independent person on furnishing two independent sureties of Rs. 20,000
each and the personal bond of the like amount.
•
It is in this context of events that the appellant on 13 January,
1964 in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kiraoli-Kheragarh, Agra declared himself surety for truck No. RJZ-1724 and
gave a bond as follows :-
"I do hereby bind myself to produce the said truck
whenever ordered by the court to produce the same and
in case of my making default therein I bind myself to
forfeit to the Government the sum of Rs. 20,000".
On 13 January, 1964 the appellant also gave a personal bOnd
that he/ow~ed property worth Rs. 1,05,000 and further declared
that he would not dispose of his propefty till the bond is discharged
by the Sessions' Court.
1086
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] l S.C.R.
On 1 May, 196,5 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh
gave notice to the appellant and the other surety Kishan Lal Gupta
that the truck had not been produced in the court and the sureties were informed to produce the truck in the court of the SubDivisional Magistrate, Kheragarh on 10 May, 1965 and also
show cause as to why the surety bond of. Rs. 20,000 should not
be forfeited.
On 5 June, 1965 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh
passed an order recording that in spite of notices the sureties did
not produce the truck and failed to make any response.
The SubDivisional Magistrate further recorded in the order that under
order dated 10 May, 1965 the surety bond was forfeited and
notice was
given to the appella.nt to
show cause
as to
why the said amount of the surety was not to be realised from the
appellant. In spite of service -0f the notice on the appellant he
did not make any response.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate under
these circumstances on 5 June, 1965 passed an order that the
amount of Rs. 20,000 of the surety bond should be realised from
the appellant as a fine.
The appellant made an application in revision against the
order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
The application was before the Civil and Sessions Judge, Agra who rejected the revision
a'pp!ication on 28 January, 1966.
The appellant thereafter went up in revision to the High Court
at Allahabad against the order of the Civil and Sessions Judge
dated 28 January, 1966.
The High Court said that there was
no explanation as to why the truck was i!lOt produced.
The High
Court found it a clear ca>e that the entire amount of the bond be
recovered from the appellant.
On behalf of the appellant prayer
was made for reduction of the amount,
The High Court fou.nd
no justification for the same.
Before the High Court the point
was raised that the surety bond was given in one court and it was
forfeited in another court.
The High Court did JJ.Ot allow the
question to be raised on the ground that the point had not been
raised either before the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge, and,
therefore, the High Court declined to allow any such question to
be raised.
Counsel for the appellant contended that the bond was executed in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kiraoli and
the order of forfeiture of the surety bond was passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate, Kheragarh and it was only the court of
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kiraoli which could forfeit the bond
.amount and no other court could.
A
B
c
D
'
E
F
0
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAMESH CHANDRA v. U,P. STATE (Ray, J.)
1087
The High Court rightly refused the appellant to urge this
ground as to want of jurisdiction of the court of Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Kheragarh to forfeit the bond amou.nt.
Such a plea
of jurisdiction is interlaced with questions o,f fact.
It may be
that the case was transferred from the court of one Magistrate
to the court of another.
It may be that a particular court is abolished and the jurisdiction of the abolished court is transferred to
the other court.
It may be that allocation of business is changed
or redistributed among Magistrates Court from time to time. If
this particular ground had been urged at the proper time these
facts could have been elucidated.
It wili appear from the records that the surety bond was given
on 13 January, 1964 in the court o,f Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Kiraoli Kheragarh, Agra.
The personal bond of the appellant
was given on the same day before the same Magistrate.
The
notice dated 1 May, 1965 for production of the truck and for
forfeiture of the surety money in default of production was given
by the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kiraoli Kheragarh,
Agra and was signed. by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh.
The order dated 5 June, 1965 was also by the court of SubDivisional Magistrate, Kiraoli-Kheragarh, Agra and signed by
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh.
The judgment dated 28
January, 1966 o£ the court of Sessions Judge, Agra also stated
that the case was pending before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh. These facts indicate many probabilities and that is why
the High Court rightly declined to go into the question.
Counsel for the appellant relied on the provisions contained
in section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Bench
decision of the Bombay High Court in Ballabhdas Motiram Gupta
v. Emperor reported in A.I.R. 1943 Born. 178 in support of the
proposition that the bond given to a court could be forfeited only
by that court.
In the Bombay case the bond was given by the
accused for his appearance in the court of the. Chief Presidency
Magistrate.
The bond was forfeited by llill order of the 8th
Presidency Magistrate to whose court the case had been transferred.
The terms of the bond in the Bombay case were that the
accused bound himself to attend in the court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate on 29 February next to answer to the charge
and to continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the court.
The accused attended on 29 February and thereafter continued to
attend the court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate until 20
April when the case was transferred to the court of Eighth Presidency Magistrate.
The accused continued to appear before the
Eighth Presidency Magistrate until 5 December when he made·
the default.
The question was whether the accused had broken
the condition and the bond.
The Bombay High Court came to
.
1088
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1972] l S.C.R.
the conclusion that he did not.
The reason was that the accused
had undertaken to attend the court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate and to continue so to attend, i.e., to attend the court of the
Chief Presidency Magistrate until otherwise directed by the court.
It was held that the court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate
could direct the accused to cease attendance tn the Chief Presi·
dency Magistrate's court but it could not direct him to attend
some other court which he had nor undertaken to attend. On the
construction of the bond it was found that the accused did not
commit a breach of the bond.
Even if the appellant were permitted to raise this question
B
in the present case without any question of fact and purely on the
C
construction of the bond it would appear that the appellant bound
himself to produce the truck whenever ordered by the court to
produce the same.
Therefore; there was no undertaking to pro·
duce the truck in a particular court.
The undertaking was to
produce the truck whenever ordered by the court.
The u:1der
taking was to the court of the Magistrate.
The_ Magistrate ex er·
cises jurisdiction in the whole district under section 12 of the
D
Criminal Procedure Code.
Furthermore, the bond provided that
in case of default the appellant bound himse)f to forfeit to the
f
Government the amount covered by the bond sum of Rs. 20,000.
There.fore purely on a construction of the surety bond the appellant became liable to the State for the sum of Rs.
20,000 by
reason of default to produce the truck when he was called upon
E
to do so.
The word 'court' in the bond in the present case will
mean the Magistrate's court which dealt with the case.
The appeal, therdore, fails and is dismissed.
K.B.N.
Appeal dismissed.