( 1 ) THIS is a petition under S. 482, Cr. P. C. seeking quashing of the order passed by the First Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The petitioners are facing trial in Crime No. 6 of 1999 under Ss. 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The allegations against them are that, when the premises belonging to them was inspected the electricity meter was found defective as it was stopping intermittently. It was also alleged that the meter was not recording the correct load position and on inspection it was found that the meter had been tampered with. The petitioners filed a bail application. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge directed that, in case of surrender of the petitioners before the Investigating Officer they shall be released on bail subject to executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 with two sureties in like amount. The case of the petitioners is that, after this order was passed they were asked by the Investigating Officer to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,20,000. 00 as six sureties were needed in all. Their case is that, cash security cannot be insisted upon by the respondents. So, the question before this Court is whether the Court or the Officer who is required to satisfy himself about the bail bonds can insist upon cash bonds or cash securities.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the Public Prosecutor. Section 441 of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down :"441. Bond of accused and sureties.- (1) 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. (2) Where any condition is imposed for the release of any person on bail, the bond shall also contain that condition. (3) If the case so requires, the bond shall also bind the person released on bail to appear when called upon at the High Court, or the Court of Session or other Court to answer the charge. (4) For the purpose of determining whether the sureties are fit or sufficient, the Court may accept affidavits in proof of the facts contained therein relating to the sufficiency or fitness of the sureties, or, if it considers necessary, may either hold an inquiry itself or cause an inquiry to be made by a Magistrate subordinate to the Court as to such sufficiency or fitness. "

( 3 ) THIS section nowhere contemplates cash security. The bare perusal of the section would show that the officers or the Court will have to satisfy himself whether the sureties are fit or sufficient. In order to reach to such satisfaction the Court or the officer may accept affidavits in proof of the facts contained therein relating to the sufficiency or fitness of the sureties. They are also empowered either to hold an inquiry or cause an inquiry to be held by a Magistrate subordinate to the Court with regard to sufficiency or otherwise of the bond. Therefore, there is no occasion for any Court or any Officer to insist upon cash securities or cash bonds. If they are satisfied with the bonds or the sureties they will release the persons on bail and if there are any doubts the Court can order an inquiry.

( 4 ) THE interpretation that is being placed on S. 441, Cr. P. C. by this Court appears to be the only interpretation that can be placed on it in view of the mandate contained in S. 445, Cr. P. C. Section 445, Cr. P. C. lays down :"445. Deposit instead of recognizance.- When any person is required by any Court or officer to execute a bond with or without sureties, such Court or officer may, except in the case of a bond for good behaviour, permit him to deposit a sum of money or Government promissory notes to such