Harnam Singh, J.
1. To appreciate the point of law involved, the facts of the case must be set out in some detail.
2. It appears that on 1st June 1917, between 6 and 7 p. m, Hazara Singh, son of Atma Singh of village Muradpur was beaten very severely. Hazara Singh died of the injuries sustained and Sohan Singh, son of Bur Singh Jat of village Huradpur, district Ami'itsar was sent up for trial for the murder of HazaraSingh in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The case was to be tried as a summons case under the provisions of the Punjab Public Safety Act, 1947, and after the examination of Sohan Singh accused on 25th August 1947, the case was adjourned for trial to 3rd October 1947.
3. In the meanwhile, Sohan Singh applied for bail and on act September 1947, he was released on bail of rupees ten thousand with one surety of the same amount. Deva Singh son of Sundar Singh, Jat of village Usman. Tabsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar, stood surety for the appearance of Soban Singh accused.
4. The case came up for hearing on 3rd October 1947. Sohan Singh did not appear in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge who thereupon ordered the case to come up on the following day and issued a notice to Deva Singh surety to show cause why his bond should not be forfeited. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, issued non-bailable warrants for the arrest of Sohan Singh accused but the Sub-Inspector reported on 4th October 1947, that he had not beenable to find Sohan Singh. The Additional Sessions Judge again directed that notices may be issued to the surety for 15th October 1947 to Show oause why his bail bond should not be-forfeited. Neither the accused appeared in Court on 18th October 1947, nor were the non-bailable warrants for the arrest of the accused issued on 4th October 1947 received back. Under the circumstances the Court directed that another notice may be issued to the Sub-Inspeotbr in charge of Jhabal police station to appear in Court on the next hearing in order to ascertain from him the whereabouts of the accused. The accused, however, could not be traced and on 29th October 1947, the Court directed that Gian Singh, Sub-Inspector may be summoned for 1st November 1947. Gian Singh appeared in Court as directed and stated that he was no more in charge of the police station Tarn Taran and, therefore', he was not in a position to give any information about the whereabouts of Sohan Singh accused.
5. The Court thereupon called upon Deva Singh, surety, to produce such evidence as he considered necessary to substantiate his allegations. Non-bailable warrants were again issued for the arrest and production of Sohan Singh on 25th November 1947. a number of witnesses were examined in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge on 25th November 1947, and on the conclusion of evidence he recorded the order:
In these circumstances, therefore, I forfeit the bonda of the accased Soban Singh as well as that of his Burety Deva Singh and order that the amount Of Ui 10,000 should be realised in the first instance by attachment and sale of the inoveables of Sohan Bingh accused. If this amount cannot be realised from movables then the immovable property of Sohan Singh accused be attached and sold and if the amount be recovered by such sale of the property of the accused Sohan Singh then the liability of the petitioner surety Deva Singh shall be absolved. Bat if the amount cannot be realised from the attachment and sale of the property of Soban Singh accused mentioned above then the moveable and im-moveable property of Dewa Singh surety shall be attached and cold for the recovery of this amount.
6. Counsel for the petitioner contends in the first place that the bonds entered into by the accused and the surety on 20th September 1917 do not make them liable in case of default of appearance in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge. He argues that the bond relates to the appearance of the accused in the Court of the Magistrate and that the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge is not mentioned in the bond of the accused or the surety, In my view, this objection has no force. The accused appeared in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge on 26th August 1947 and he was directed to appear in the trial Court on 3rd October 1947. He entered into the bond in question on 20th September 1917 and the heading of the bond would show that the bond related to the appearance of the accused in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Amritsar.
7. Counsel next contends that the procedure prescribed in Section 514, Criminal F. C. has not been followed. The relevant portion of Section 514, Criminal P. C. reads:
(1) Whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which a bond under this Gode has been taken, 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 snob, bonds to pay the penalty thereof, or to show cause why it should not be paid.
(2) If sufficient cause in not shown and the penalty is not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same by issuing a warrant for the attachment and sale of the moveable property belonging to such person or his estate if he be dead.
Counsel relies in this connection on Mon Mohan Chakravarti and another v. King-Emperor A.I.R. (16) 1928 Gal. 261. In that case Sander, son, C. J. said:
In my judgment the provisions of this section indicate that two steps are to be taken: first, it must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the bond has been forfeited, whereupon the Court is to record the grounds of such proof; secondly, the Court on being satisfied as aforesaid, may call upon the person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof, or to show cause why it should not be paid.
Sanderson C. J. further observed:
In accordance with the terms of Section 814, Criminal P. C. the learned Judge should then have called upon the petitioners to pay the penalty of the bond or to show cause why it should not be paid. This step in the proceedings was not taken, although it appears that the petitioners, when showing cause against the forfeiture of the bond, presented arguments to the effect that they should cot be called upon to pay the whole of the penalty specified in the bond.
In that view of the case, the rule issued was made absolute and the matter remanded to the learned Judge so that, if he thought it necessary to proceed further with the matter, he might take the steps which are prescribed in Section 514, Criminal P. C.
8. The point raised by Mr. Sethi receives full support from the authority cited above, with which I respectfully agree.
9. For the reasons given above, I allow the petition and remand the case to the trial Court, with the direction that if it be considered necessary to proceed further with the matter the Court will call upon the persons bound by the bonds to pay the penalty or to show cause why it should not be paid.
10. The parties are directed to appear in the Court below on 14th February 1949.