# THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. MOHAMMED SA YEED

- **Citation:** [1957] 1 S.C.R. 770
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1955-03-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1955
- **Bench:** Bhagwati, Jafer Imam, A.K. Sarkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-v-mohammed-sa-yeed-1372
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Surety bond--Undertaking to forfeit
sum of monty to
King
Emperor
Qaisar-e-Hind
on Jaiture
to
produce
accused-Whether
bond legal and er.Jorceable-Code of Criminal Procedure, ss. 499, 514,
and 555-Adaptation ef Laws Order, 1950, cl. 4ln 1953 the respondent executed a surety bond undertaking
to produce the accused before the
~1agistru.te and to forfeit
Rs. 500 to King Emperor Qaisar-e-Hind as penalty if he failed
to do so.
Upon his failure to produce the acc;used, the !vfagistrate
forfeited the bond to the extent of Rs. 300. The contenlion of
the respondent \Vas that the bond not being in favour of
the
Government, could not be forfeited.
Held, that the bond \Vas a bond unknovvn to the law of the
Republic of India under the Code of Criminal Procedure at the
time of its execution and could not be forfeited. The respondent
did not execute a bond by which he bound himself to forfeit the
said sum either to the Government of the Union of India or that
of the State of Uttar Pradesh. To be a valid bond, the undertaking should have been to forfeit to the Government and not
to the King Emperor. The words King Emperor Qaisar-e-Hind
in the bond execut~d by the respondent could not be read, by
\'irtue of cl. 4 of the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, to mean
Goverrunent.

## Text

1957
March 26.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
THE STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH
v.
MOHAMMED SA YEED
(BHAGWATI,
JAFER IMAM and A.K. SARKAR JJ.)
Surety bond--Undertaking to forfeit
sum of monty to
King
Emperor
Qaisar-e-Hind
on Jaiture
to
produce
accused-Whether
bond legal and er.Jorceable-Code of Criminal Procedure, ss. 499, 514,
and 555-Adaptation ef Laws Order, 1950, cl. 4ln 1953 the respondent executed a surety bond undertaking
to produce the accused before the
~1agistru.te and to forfeit
Rs. 500 to King Emperor Qaisar-e-Hind as penalty if he failed
to do so.
Upon his failure to produce the acc;used, the !vfagistrate
forfeited the bond to the extent of Rs. 300. The contenlion of
the respondent \Vas that the bond not being in favour of
the
Government, could not be forfeited.
Held, that the bond \Vas a bond unknovvn to the law of the
Republic of India under the Code of Criminal Procedure at the
time of its execution and could not be forfeited. The respondent
did not execute a bond by which he bound himself to forfeit the
said sum either to the Government of the Union of India or that
of the State of Uttar Pradesh. To be a valid bond, the undertaking should have been to forfeit to the Government and not
to the King Emperor. The words King Emperor Qaisar-e-Hind
in the bond execut~d by the respondent could not be read, by
\'irtue of cl. 4 of the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, to mean
Goverrunent.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal
Appeal No. 130 of 1955.
Appeal under Arti<;le 134(1) (c) of the Constitution
of India from the judgment and order dated March
11, 1955, of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
at Lucknow in Criminal Revision No. 60 of
1954
arising out of the judgment and order dated February
21, 1954, of the Sessions Judge at Gonda in Criminal
Appeal No. 292 of 1953.
G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the appellant.
1957'.
March 26. The Judgement of the Court was
delivered by
IMAM J.-This is an appeal by the State of Uttar
Pradesh against the decision of the Allahabad High
Court on a certificate granted by that Court that the
case was a fit one for appeal to this Court.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
The undisputea facts are that one Mohammad Yasin
was prosecuted under s. 379, Indian Penal Code.
He
was released on bail. The respondent along with o;-ie
Ram Narain stood surety
for him, having
executed
surety bonds under s. 499 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, undertaking to produce the accused Yasin
before the Court to answer the charge and to forfeit
Rs. 500 each to King Emperor Qaiser-e-Hind as
a
penalty if they failed to do so.
Yasin absconded. All
attempts to secure his presence before the Court were
of no avail. Consequently notices were issued under
s. 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the sureties
to show cause why their bonds should not be forfeited.
The Magistrate, after giving the matter his consideration, ordered their bonds to be forfeited to the extent
of Rs. 300 each.
The
respondent appealed to
the
Sessions Judge of Gonda who dismissed his appeal.
Dissatisfied with the orders of the :Magistrate and the
Sessions Judge, the respondent filed a criminal revision in the High
Court and Mulla J. allowerl his
application and set aside the order of the Magistrate
forfeiting the bond executed by him.
At the request
of the Government Advocate the learned Judge granted the requisite certificate by virtue
of which the
present appeal is before use.
The only question for consideration is whether the
bond executed by the respondent was one under the
Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore capable of
being forfeited in accordance with the provisions of
s. 514, Criminal Procedure Code. Section 499 of the
Code requires that before any person is released on
bail or; released on his own bond, a bond for such sum
of money as the police officer or Court, as the case may
be, thinks sufficient shall be executed by such person,
and, when he is released on bail,
by one or more
sufficient sureties conditioned that such person
shall
attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond,
and shall continue so to attend until otherwise directed
by the police officer or Court, as the case may be.
In
Schedule V of the Code of Criminal Procedure various
forms are set out and s. 555 of the Code provides
that subject to the power conferred by s. 554 and by
1957
The Stat• <f
Uttar Praduh
v.
Mohammed Say<ed
Imam j,
1957
The State of
Uttar Pradesh
v.
Mohammed Sayud
Imam J.
SUPREME COURTREPORT3
Art. 227 of the Constitution, the forms, set forth
in
that Schedule, with such variation as the circumstances
of each case require, may be used for the respective
purposes therein mentioned, and if used shall
be
sufficient.
Form XLII of that Schedule sets forth the
contents of a bond to be executed by an aacused and
his surety.
The bond is in two parts--one part to be
signed by the accused and the other part to be signed
by his surety or sureties.
Both the accused and the
sureties in executing such a bond
guarantee the
attendance of the accused in Court whenever called
upon to answer the charge against him and in case of
default also bind themselves to forfeit to Government
the specified sum of money mentioned therein.
This
is what the bond should state since the Adaptation of
Laws Order, 1950, dated January 26, 1950.
Previous
to that Order the word Government did not appear in
the bond.
By virtue of cl. 4 of the said Order, whenever an expression mentioned in column 1 of the Table
thereunder occurred (otherwise than in a
title or
preamble or in a citation or description of an enactment) in an existing Central or Provincial Law whether
an Act, Ordinance or Regulation mentioned in the
Schedules to the Order, then unless that expression
was by the Order expressly directed to be otherwise
adapted or modified, or to stand unmodified, or to be
omitted, there shall be substituted therefor the expression set opposite to it in column 2 of the said Table.
In column 1 of the Table the words "Crown" "Her
Majesty" and "His Majesty" appear and against
them in column 2 the word "Government" appear~.
The plain reading of this clause is that wherever the
words "Crov:n", "Her Majesty" or "His Majesty"
appear, for them, the word "Government" shall be
substituted in the existing Central or Provincial Laws
mentioned in the First Schedule to the Order. The
Code of Criminal Procedure is one of the Central Laws
mentioned in the said Schedule wherein Schedule V of
the Code of Criminal Procedure is mentioned and the
Order directs that throughout Schedule" V of the
Criminal Procedure Code, except where otherwise
provided, for the words "Her Majesty The Queen"
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
773
and "His Majesty The King" the word "Government"
shall be substituted.
Previous to the Adaptation of
Laws Order, 1950, there was the Adaptation of Laws
Order, 1948 and the words "Empress of India" appearing in the bond were repealed and in place thereof the
words "Her
Majesty The Queen" were substituted.
India attained Dominion status in 194 7 and became a
Republic in 1950. The Adaptation of Laws Order, 1948
and that of 1950 were consequential upon the change
of status of India into a Dominion and then into a
Sovereign Republic. Since January 26, 1950, therefore
no bond exetuted in favour of the Empress of India
could be said to be a bond executed under the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The bond which the respondent
had executed was to forfeit to the King Emperor a
certain sum of money if he made default in procuring
the attendance of the accused before the Court. He
did not execute a bond by which he bound himself to
forfeit the said sum either to the Government of the
Union of India or that of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The bond executed by him in 1953 was a bond unknown
to the law of the Republic of India under the Code of
Criminal Procedure at the time of its execution.
Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers
a court to forfeit a bond which has been executed under
the provisions of that Code and since the bond
executed by the respondent is not one under the Code
of Criminal Procedure, resort could not be had to the
provisions of s. 5 l 4 of the Code to forfeit the same.
It was, however urged on behalf of the State that
under cl. 4 of the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950 the
form of the bond stood amended by the substitution of
the word "Government" therein in place and stead of
the words "Her Majesty The Queen" and the bond
should be read accordingly.
The words King Emperor
Qaisar-e-Hind must be deemed 2s no longer existing in
the forfeited bond.
Clause 4 of the Order, however,
directs that the word "Government" shall be substituted
for the words "Crown", "Her Majesty" and "His
11ajesty". There is no mention therein of the
words
king Emperor or Emperor of India, Queen Empress
or Empress of India or Qaiser-e-Hind as being so
1957
. The State of
Uttar Pradesh
v.
Mohammed Sayeed
imam J.
1957
The State of
Uttar Pradesh
v
Mohamm;d Sayud
Imam].
774
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
substituted.
The words King Emperor Qaisar-e-Hind
in the bond executed by the
respondent cannot therefore be read, by virtue of cl. 4 of the Order, to mean
Government. There has undoubtedly been some error,
carelessness or negligence on the part of those on whom
a duty lay to make the necessary changes in the
phraseology of the bond set out in Schedule V of the
Code of Criminal Procedure to be executed under
s. 499.
The fact, however, remains that the respondent
had not bound himself either to the Government of
the Union of India or that of the State ofUttar Pradesh
to have his bond forfeited on his failure to produce the
accused before the court and he is entitled to say that
no order of forfeiture could be passed against him with
respect to a bond which was not one under the Code
and which was one unknown to the law, as contained
in the Code, at the time of its execution. The objection
raised by the respondent to the order forfeiting
the
bond executed by him is a substantial one and the said
order was made under a misapprehension that it could
be made under s. 514 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed;