CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Harries, C.J, Blank, J.
Subodh Chandra Goho - Appellant
Versus
Jamser Mondal - Respondent
Decided On : 05-02-1948
Sureties - Criminal Procedure Code - Stay order absolves sureties from obligation to produce accused - Sureties automatically discharged when proceedings against accused are quashed
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners stood surety for two accused persons against whom summonses had been issued. The lower court initiated proceedings against the sureties for the failure of the accused to appear in court during a stay order issued by the higher court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the stay order issued by the higher court absolved the sureties from their obligation to produce the accused in court during the period of the stay order. The court quashed the proceedings against the accused, automatically discharging the sureties from further obligation.
Issues: The issue was whether the sureties were obligated to produce the accused in court during a stay order issued by the higher court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a stay order from the higher court suspends all proceedings in the lower court, absolving the sureties from their obligation to produce the accused. The quashing of proceedings against the accused automatically discharged the sureties from further obligation.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the order of the lower court was set aside, and the sureties were discharged from all further obligation.
JUDGMENT
Harries, C.J. - This is a petition for revision of an order passed by a learned Magistrate initiating proceedings u/s 514, Criminal P. C, against sureties.
2. Summonses had been issued against two persons and the three petitioners stood surety. The persons accused moved this Court in revision praying that the proceedings against them should be quashed. This Court issued a rule and stayed all further proceedings in the lower Court until the rule was heard and disposed of.
3. The learned Magistrate knowing that ft stay order had been made by this Court directed proceedings to be drawn up u/s 614, Criminal P. C., against the sureties. In the view of the learned Magistrate an order of this Court staying proceedings did not absolve the accused in the proceedings stayed from appearing from time to time in the Court as directed by their bail bonds. As they had failed to appear the learned Magistrate was of opinion that proceedings should be taken against these sureties.
4. When this Court orders criminal proceedings to be stayed.it means what it says, namely, that all proceedings in the Court below must be suspended and nothing done until the matter is disposed of in this Court. If the proceedings in the Court below are to be suspended entirely it follows that the accused need not appear in the Court from time to time whilst the stay order is in existence. Further, the stay order absolves the sureties from their obligation to produce the accused in Court during the period of the stay order is effective. When this Court Stayed the proceedings, it appears to me that the sureties were not under an obligation to produce the accused until such stay order was discharged.
5. The proceedings in which the accused were involved and for which the present petitioners stood sureties have been quashed by this Court and the effect of that is that these sureties are automatically discharged.
6. In the result therefore this petition is allowed, the order of the learned Magistrate is set aside and, as I have said, the sureties are discharged from all further obligation.
7. The rule is accordingly made absolute.
Blank, J.
8. I agree.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.