# had executed his bond. J9oZ Ohairman of tht Municipal. Commissione1a of Howrah v. Bhalimtlr Wood Prod11cts Kop11r .T

- **Citation:** [1963] 1 S.C.R. 55
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 171of1959
- **Bench:** J. L. Kapur, Raghubar Dayal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/had-executed-his-bond-j9oz-ohairman-of-tht-municipal-commissione1a-of-howrah-v-2619
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Procedure-Surety bond-Substitutin{f one surety
for another-Procedure-If accused must execute per.~onal bond
with every suretv bond-Forfeiture of bond-Gode of Oriminal
Procedure, 1898 (Act. V of 18!J8), .~s. 499, 500, fi02, Sclied111e V.
Form. No. XLII.
One R was grantee! bail on his furnishing a personal
bond and three sureties which he did.
O_n. July 7, one of
the sureties S appl~ed for the discharge of his bond. On July
9, R made an application that the appdlants surety bond be
a<:cepted in place of S, and the same day the 'appellant
filed his surety bond. The appellant also· filed an affidavit
that he had property enough to satisfy the bond and a vakil
also certified to that effect. The bond was sent for verification
to the Tehsil and after verification was formally accepted on
August
20.
Subsequently R ab~condecl and the appellant's
bond was forfeited. The appellant contended that the
forfeiture was illegal and t?at his bond was not properly
accepted as no warraut was issued fm: the arrest of R when
S applied for the discharge of his bond, as the bond of S
was not formally discharged and as R had not execulccl a
personal hond on the reverse of the form on which the
appellant had executed his bond.
J9oZ
Ohairman of tht
Municipal.
Commissione1a of
Howrah
v.
Bhalimtlr Wood
Prod11cts
Kop11r .T
1962
MarchZ6.
1162
Bekaru Singh
v.
.<tat1 of U. P.
56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962]
Held, that the surety bond of the appellant had been
properly accepted and the forfeiture was legally made. The
provisions of s. 502 of the Code of Crirninal Procedure were
meant for the continuity of the. •nrety bond and for enabling
the accu~rd to offer another surety bonds; they were not conrlitions precedent for the acceptance of a fresh surety in place
of an earlier one. There was no occasion to issue a warrant
for the arrest of R as he was present, in Court on July 7,
when S applied for the discharge of his bond and may have
intimated to the Court that he would offer fresh surety on
July 9. The Court was interested in getting a fresh surety
for letting R continue on bail and it did no wrong in accepting
the appellant's surety bond which was offered. The bond of
S stood cancelled and appellant'• bond took its place. The
bond of the appellant was really accepted on July 9 when
the appellant filed the affidavit as required bys. 499 ( 3) of
the Code and the Vakil also certified as to his solvancy. It
was immatrrial that the bond was formally accepted on
August 20.
Further, it was not necessary that each surety
should execute the surety bond on the reverse of the personal
bond of the accused.

## Text

1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
55
but that is the interpretation of the language of the
various sections which are-relevant in the prf'sent
case.
Wa therefore aJlow the appeal, set aside the
order of the High Court and convict the respondent
of the offences charged, but in view of the fact that
the appel1ant succeeds on a question of interpretation we do not think it necessary to increase the
sentence of fine. imposed by the
0 1earned Sessiom1'
.Judge.
The appeal is a.llowed to that extent.
Appeal f!llowe.d.
BEKARU SINGH
v.
STATE OF U. P.
(J. L. KAPUR, and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)
Criminal Procedure-Surety bond-Substitutin{f one surety
for another-Procedure-If accused must execute per.~onal bond
with every suretv bond-Forfeiture of bond-Gode of Oriminal
Procedure, 1898 (Act. V of 18!J8), .~s. 499, 500, fi02, Sclied111e V.
Form. No. XLII.
One R was grantee! bail on his furnishing a personal
bond and three sureties which he did.
O_n. July 7, one of
the sureties S appl~ed for the discharge of his bond. On July
9, R made an application that the appdlants surety bond be
a<:cepted in place of S, and the same day the 'appellant
filed his surety bond. The appellant also· filed an affidavit
that he had property enough to satisfy the bond and a vakil
also certified to that effect. The bond was sent for verification
to the Tehsil and after verification was formally accepted on
August
20.
Subsequently R ab~condecl and the appellant's
bond was forfeited. The appellant contended that the
forfeiture was illegal and t?at his bond was not properly
accepted as no warraut was issued fm: the arrest of R when
S applied for the discharge of his bond, as the bond of S
was not formally discharged and as R had not execulccl a
personal hond on the reverse of the form on which the
appellant had executed his bond.
J9oZ
Ohairman of tht
Municipal.
Commissione1a of
Howrah
v.
Bhalimtlr Wood
Prod11cts
Kop11r .T
1962
MarchZ6.
1162
Bekaru Singh
v.
.<tat1 of U. P.
56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962]
Held, that the surety bond of the appellant had been
properly accepted and the forfeiture was legally made. The
provisions of s. 502 of the Code of Crirninal Procedure were
meant for the continuity of the. •nrety bond and for enabling
the accu~rd to offer another surety bonds; they were not conrlitions precedent for the acceptance of a fresh surety in place
of an earlier one. There was no occasion to issue a warrant
for the arrest of R as he was present, in Court on July 7,
when S applied for the discharge of his bond and may have
intimated to the Court that he would offer fresh surety on
July 9. The Court was interested in getting a fresh surety
for letting R continue on bail and it did no wrong in accepting
the appellant's surety bond which was offered. The bond of
S stood cancelled and appellant'• bond took its place. The
bond of the appellant was really accepted on July 9 when
the appellant filed the affidavit as required bys. 499 ( 3) of
the Code and the Vakil also certified as to his solvancy. It
was immatrrial that the bond was formally accepted on
August 20.
Further, it was not necessary that each surety
should execute the surety bond on the reverse of the personal
bond of the accused.
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
' -
l s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
57
was to furnish the persona.I bond and the sureties
within three weeks from the dat<~ of the order. It
. was further ordered:
"The 11pplicant should fornif~h the personal bond and sureties as directed above
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 embezzlement 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
B1karu Singh
'"
State of U. P,
Raghubor DaJal J,
1982
n~1:0.1u Singh
v.
St•te of U. P.
Raghubar Dayal J.
58
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
be accepted in place of Safir Hussain's surety.
lklmru filed the surety bond offering himself to
siand surety for Rs. 40,000/.for Ram Na.rain's appearance in Court. He was identified by Sri Ahmad
Husain, Vakil, who certified that Bekaru Singh
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! preferred this appeal by special leave.
The main contention for the appellant is that
the learned Magistrate should not have accepted
I S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
59
Bekaru Singh's surety bond without first taking
action contemplate.d by sub-sections (2) and (3) of
s. 502, Cr.P.C. Section 502 reads:-
"( 1) · All or any sureties for the attendance and appearance of a person released on
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 relates 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 discharge 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 provisions 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
1962'
Bekaru Singh
v.
Stoll of U. P.
Roghubar D4Yal, J.
•
~
1
196%
Bek1Jra Singli
v.
Stale of Uc P.
RaghulJor Dayal J.
60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
a fresh surety in place of the earlier one.
In the
circumstanceH of the present case, there w11s no
occasion to issue a warrant for the arrest of Ham
Narain on Safir Hussain's applying for the discharge
of his surety bond. We do not know in what circ1imstances 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 formally 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 person 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 necessary."
When Bek!l>l'u furnished the surety bond he also filed
-1
I S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
st
an affidavit stating therein that the house mention.;;
ed in the surety bond wa.s worth over R.s. 40,000/- .
Sri Ahmed Husain Vakil, certified that Bekaru
post1essed · sufficient property to stand surety for
tts. 40,000/- . In the circumstanoes, the Magistrate
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 executed, 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
1962
Bek~Singh
v.
seae, OJ u. P.
Raghubar Dqyal J.
1Uu'2
B1karu Singh
v.
Slate of U.P.
R.ghubar Dayal J.
62
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
side the personal bond executed by Ram Narain
and that in the absence of a personal bond by
Ram Narain, the surety bonrl executed by Bekaru
could not be legally accepted. Reliance is placed
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 executed 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 therefore 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 individual 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.
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COUR'I' REPORTS
bond afresh when Bekaru furnished fresh surety in
place of Sa.fir Hussain's surety bond. We therefore
hold that the appellant's bond has been rightly
forfeited ou the non-appearance of Ram Narain in
Court. W c therefore dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismisse.d·.
VITHAL KRISHNAJI NIVENDKAH
v.
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 builcii~ 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, which was a cha1itable trust, in respect of the grant
a 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.
1962
B 1koru Singh
v.
Sta~o/U.P·
Raghubar D~Yal J.
1962
March2'1,