Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

MustaqimuddIn Vs. Emperor

Mustaqimuddin vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 17, 1925
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/476580

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mustaqimuddin

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1926All297

Excerpt

- .....given in form no. 42 of the fifth schedule to the criminal p.c. are wide enough to include the successor of the court in which the cage originally was. any other view of the law would produce most inconvenient results, since if an accused were on bail when a case was transferred, it would in every case be necessary before transferring the case to order his arrest or to require him to give fresh sureties.3. as regards the second point, the terms of the bond include not only an inquiry before the magistrate but also dates fixed in the sessions court if the case goes to that court. in this case, the magistrate could order the accused to give security for three years; but if the security was not given it was not in his power finally to dispose of the case. final order under section 123 of the code could only be passed by the sessions judge. the magistrate had power under section 120 of the code to postpone the date from which the security should take effect, i.e., to give the accused time within which to furnish it. until it was seen whether the accused could give the security or an order would have to be passed referring the case for the final orders of the sessions judge it cannot be said that the proceedings in the magistrate's court had finally terminated so as to put an end to the liability of the sureties who were responsible for the accused's attendance. i find therefore that the orders of the courts below are correct, and i dismiss this application.

Full Judgment

Daniels, J.

1. This is an application in revision in a case in which sureties' bonds have been ordered to be forfeited under Section 514, Criminal P.C. Two points of law are raised: (1) That the bonds were given for attendance in the Court of the Cantonment Magistrate and that the liabilities of the sureties came to an end when the case was transferred to another Court. (2) That on 22nd September the Magistrate passed an order directing the accused in the case to give security for three years, but allowed him ten days' time, up to 3rd October, to file security. It was on this latter date that he absconded. The applicant contends that his liability came to an end on 22nd September.

2. Owing to a change in the law the Court of the Cantonment Magistrate ceased to exist in March 1924; and it appears from the Magistrate's order that all cases from that Court were transferred to the Court of B. Jai Narain, Special Magistrate. In my opinion the terms of the security bond given in Form No. 42 of the Fifth Schedule to the Criminal P.C. are wide enough to include the successor of the Court in which the cage originally was. Any other view of the law would produce most inconvenient results, since if an accused were on bail when a case was transferred, it would in every case be necessary before transferring the case to order his arrest or to require him to give fresh sureties.

3. As regards the second point, the terms of the bond include not only an inquiry before the Magistrate but also dates fixed in the Sessions Court if the case goes to that Court. In this case, the Magistrate could order the accused to give security for three years; but if the security was not given it was not in his power finally to dispose of the case. Final order under Section 123 of the Code could only be passed by the Sessions Judge. The Magistrate had power under Section 120 of the Code to postpone the date from which the security should take effect, i.e., to give the accused time within which to furnish it. Until it was seen whether the accused could give the security or an order would have to be passed referring the case for the final Orders of the Sessions Judge it cannot be said that the proceedings in the Magistrate's Court had finally terminated so as to put an end to the liability of the sureties who were responsible for the accused's attendance. I find therefore that the orders of the Courts below are correct, and I dismiss this application.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial