( 1 ). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7/05/2001 of an Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal against the order dated 28/03/2001 of a Metropolitan Magistrate whereby amount of surety bond was sought to be recovered by issuing warrant of attachment against the property of petitioner-surety.

( 2 ). Facts giving rise to this revision in brief, are that the petitioner stood surety for Sri Dev Mahto against whom FIR No. 173/97 under sections 279/338 IPC was registered at PS R. K. Puram and executed a bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 before the police (I. O) on 28/02/1997. Since said accused was declared PO and petitioner too did not appear pursuant to the notice issued by metropolitan Magistrate seized of the matter the amount of surety bond was sought to be recovered from the petitioner by issuing warrant of attachment of his property by the order dated 28/03/2001. Appeal taken out by the petitioner against this order was dismissed by the order dated 7/05/2001.

( 3 ). Only submission advanced by Sh. R. P. Yadav for petitioner was that as the bond for appearance of accused in court dated 28/02/1997 was executed by the petitioner not at the instance of court but at the instance of police officer, the same could not have been validly forfeited under section 446 Cr. P. C. and amount thereof recovered from the petitioner. In support of the submission, reliance was placed on the decisions in rameshwar Bhartia vs. State of Assam. AIR 1952 SC 405 and surjit Singh S. Kartar Sinah vs. State, 1966 Cr. L. J. 232.

( 4 ) ON the issue in hand following para No. 16 (at page 408) of Rameshwar Bhartia s case (supra) is relevant:-

"the other point taken on behalf of the appellant is a more substantial one. The security bond was taken from him not by the court but by the Procurement inspector. It is true that it contained the undertaking that the seized paddy would be produced before the court, but still it was a promise made to the particular official and not to the court. The High Court was in error in thinking that section 514, cr. P. C. applied. Action could be taken only when the bond is taken by the court under the provisions of the code such as section 91 for appearance, the several security sections or those relating to bail. Clause (i) of section 514 runs: "whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the court by which a bond under this Code has been taken, or of the Court of a Presidendy Magistrate or Magistrate of the First Class, or when the bond is for appearance before a court, to the satisfaction of such court, that such bond has been forfeited, the court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof, or to show cause why it should not be paid. " the language is perfectly clear; the power to forfeit and the imposition of the penalty provided for in the later part of the section arise only if the preliminary conditions are satisfied. "

( 5 ). Order of High Court sending back the case to Magistrate for taking action according to law under section 514 was,thus, set aside.

( 6 ). Following the ratio in Rameshwar Bhartia s case in Surjit Singh s case (supra) the forfeiture of surety bond under section 514 Cr. P. C. executed before a police officer by the petitioner for appearance of accused in court was held to be not valid.

( 7 ). To be noted that both the said decisions were rendered with reference to section 514 of Old Criminal procedure Code, 1898. Sub section (1) thereof has been re-written and an explanation added thereto in corresponding section 446 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Said section 514 (1) read as under:-

"whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the court by which a bond under this code has been taken, or of the Court of a presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of the first Class. or, when the bond is for appearance before a court, to the satisfaction of such court, that such bond has been forfeited,