Judgement

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 only for appeal to this Court.

2. The undisputed facts are that one Mohammad Yasin was prosecuted under S. 379, Indian Penal Code. He was released on bail. The respondent along with one Ram Narain stood surety for him, having executed surety bonds under S. 499, Criminal P.C. undertaking to produce the accused Yasin before the Court to answer the charge and to forfeit Rs. 500 each to King Emperor Qaisar-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, Criminal P.C., 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 Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, the respondent filed a criminal revision in the High Court and Mulla, J., allowed 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 us.

3. 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 P.C. 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 to attend until otherwise directed by the police officer or Court, as the case may be. In Sch. V. Criminal P.C., various forms are set out and S. 555 of the code provides that subject to the power conferred by S. 554 and by Art. 227 of the Constitution, the forms set forth in that schedule, with such variations as the circumstances of each case require, may be used for the respective purposes therein mentioned, and used shall be sufficient. From 42 of that schedule sets forth the contents of a bond to be executed by an accused and his surety. The bond is in two parts one part to be signed by the accused and the part to be signed by his surety or sureties. Both the accused and the sureties in executing such 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 Law Order, 1950 dated 26-1-1950. 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 that 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 word Crown Her Majesty and His Majesty appear and against them in column 2 the word Government appears. The plain reading of this clause is that wherever the word Crown ,