Mangla Vs. the State

Mangla vs The State

Disposition Petition allowed Court Rajasthan Decided May 05, 1979

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/757090

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/757090
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: C.M. Lodha, C.J.
Decided On: May 05, 1979
Case Number: S.B. Cr. R. Petition No. 402/76
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 523--Police Officer is not authorized to take be ad from a person to whom property is entrusted--Execution involves civil liability & bond is to be executed before a court--Held, order & proceedings regarding forfeiture of bond are quashed.;That section does not authorise a ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mangla

Respondent

The State

Legal References

Cases Referred: Rumeshwar Bhattia v. The Stele of Assam
Reported In: 1979WLN274

Excerpt

.....empowers the police to get a personal bond from the person to whom the property seized is entrusted.;revision allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 2. it appears that on march 4, 1976, 14 bags of sugar recovered from the house of one kundan lal were entrusted to mingla superd dar as mangla claimed that the sugar belonged to him and had been given to him for sale as be was a licence holder for sale of controlled sugar since it was found that mangla's licence had expired on february 12, 1976, the learned magistrate called upon him to produce 14 bags of sugar and on having failed to do so, forfeited the personal bond for rs. on failure of manila to produce the sugar, the learned magistrate directed forfeiture of personal bond as well as surety bond. mangla as well as his surety anant lal filed appeals in the court of the sessions judge, banswara, and the..........they have filed these two revision-petitions.3. i have looked into the original personal bond as well as the surety bond & find that they have not been executed in favour of any court. the station house officer, banswara, had verified them. in fact the bonds are in favour of no body. consequently, the bonds cannot be said to be valid and enforceable. even the learned public prosecutor is not able to support the impugned orders.4. in anwar ahmed v. state of uttar pradesh air 1976 szc 680 where the police had seized a car alleged to have been stolen during investigation and entrusted it to the complainant on superdnama on his executing a personal bond in favour of the police, whereby he undertook to produce the care in court whenever necessary and in case of failure, he bound himself to pay a penalty, it was held that the bond was not valid and enforceable under section 514 of the code of criminal procedure. in this view of the matter, the order of the court forfeiting the bond was quashed under section 523, cr.p.c. it is for the magistrate to pass such orders as he thinks fit regarding the disposal of the property seized by the police officer during the course of investigation. however, that section does not authorise a police officer to lake a bond from the person to when the property is entrusted. the execution of the bond involves a civil liability and, therefore, as held by their lordships of the supreme court in rumeshwar bhattia v. the stele of assam : 1953 crilj163 , it is in the fitness of things that the bond should be executed before a court. thus, there is no express provision in the code of criminal procedure which empowers the police to get a personal bond from the person to whom the property seized is entrusted.5. the result is that i allow these two revision-petitioners, set aside the orders of the learned sessions judge, banswara as well as the learned judicial magistrate, banswara, and quash the proceedings regarding forfiture of the bonds in.....

Full Judgment

C.M. Lodha, C.J.

1. These are two connected revision-petitions arising out of the same order dated September 16, 1976, passed by the Sessions Judge, Banswara. The short point involved in theje revision petitions is whether the personal bond and the surety bond in question are legally enforceable.

2. It appears that on March 4, 1976, 14 bags of sugar recovered from the house of one Kundan Lal were entrusted to Mingla Superd dar as Mangla claimed that the sugar belonged to him and had been given to him for sale as be was a licence holder for sale of controlled sugar Since it was found that Mangla's licence had expired on February 12, 1976, the learned Magistrate called upon him to produce 14 bags of sugar and on having failed to do so, forfeited the personal bond for Rs. 8000/-.furnished by him. The learned Magistrate also ordered forfeiture of the surety bond furnished by Anant Lal in the sum of Rs 5000/, for production of 14 bags of sugar by Mangla. On failure of Manila to produce the sugar, the learned Magistrate directed forfeiture of personal bond as well as surety bond. Mangla as well as his surety Anant Lal filed appeals in the court of the Sessions Judge, Banswara, and the same having been dismissed, they have filed these two revision-petitions.

3. I have looked into the original personal bond as well as the surety bond & find that they have not been executed in favour of any court. The Station House Officer, Banswara, had verified them. In fact the bonds are in favour of no body. Consequently, the bonds cannot be said to be valid and enforceable. Even the learned Public Prosecutor is not able to support the impugned orders.

4. In Anwar Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1976 SZC 680 where the police had seized a car alleged to have been stolen during investigation and entrusted it to the complainant on Superdnama on his executing a personal bond in favour of the police, whereby he undertook to produce the care in court whenever necessary and in case of failure, he bound himself to pay a penalty, it was held that the bond was not valid and enforceable under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this view of the matter, the order of the court forfeiting the bond was quashed Under Section 523, Cr.P.C. it is for the Magistrate to pass such orders as he thinks fit regarding the disposal of the property seized by the police officer during the course of investigation. However, that section does not authorise a police officer to lake a bond from the person to when the property is entrusted. The execution of the bond involves a civil liability and, therefore, as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rumeshwar Bhattia v. The Stele of Assam : 1953 CriLJ163 , it is in the fitness of things that the bond should be executed before a court. Thus, there is no express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which empowers the police to get a personal bond from the person to whom the property seized is entrusted.

5. The result is that I allow these two revision-petitioners, set aside the orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara as well as the learned Judicial Magistrate, Banswara, and quash the proceedings regarding forfiture of the bonds in question.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1979 Same Parties Mangla vs The State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge C.M. Lodha, C.J.

Criminal