Anwar Ahmad Vs. State of U.P [1975] INSC
209 (12 September 1975)
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
CITATION: 1976 AIR 680 1976 SCR (1) 779 1976
SCC (1) 154
ACT:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections
514 and 523- Seizure of car suspected to have been stolen-Police entrusting the
car with the owner and getting personal bond executed for its production in
Court-Bond, if can be forfeited.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant bought a car from the dealers
on the basis of a hire-purchase agreement. He filed a report before the police
alleging that Ran Singh and others had practised a fraud on him and had taken
away his car and had not returned the same. On 3-12-1969, the police during the
course of investigation recovered the car and landed it over to the appellant
on supurdnama on his executing a personal bond whereby the appellant undertook
to produce the car in the court whenever necessary, and in the case of failure
to do so, he bound himself to pay a penalty of Rs. 5000/-. By the time the
matter came to the Court, two years had elapsed and on 14-9-1971, the munsiff
magistrate, Meerut, called upon the appellant to produced the car, and as he
was unable to do so. a notice was issued under section 514 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for forfeiture of the bond. After hearing the appellant, the
magistrate ordered the forfeiture of the bond and directed the appellant to pay
a penalty of Rs. 5000/-. He failed in his appeal and his revision petition to
the High Court was also dismissed.
Allowing the appeal by special leave,
HELD :(1) A perusal of section 514 (1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. 1898 clearly shows that a bond for production of
the property seized by the police must be executed before the Court, although a
bond for the appearance of any person before the Court can be taken by the
police under section 170(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section
also clearly enjoins that a bond can be forfeited only if` it is executed
before a Court or before a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first
class. In the present case, therefore. Once the car was seized by the police,
it was the duty of the police under section 523 to report the matter to the
magistrate and get an order from him regarding the custody of the car. This was
not done. Even the bond which was executed by the appellant, was not before the
Court or the magistrate but before the police officer, and in these
circumstances, therefore, the aforesaid bond was not one as contemplated by
section 514 and, therefore. could not be forfeited. Rameshwar Bhartia v The
State of Assam, A.I.R. 1952 'S.C. 405, relied on. [781- FH. 782-Al (ii) Though
the provisions of Regulation 165(ii) of the Government of Uttar Pradesh Police
Regulations read with section 423 of the Code undoubtedly authorizes the police
to seize the property and to make a summary order. Of the custody of' the
property, neither section 523 nor rule 165 (ii) authorize the police officer to
take a bond from the person to whom the property is entrusted. [781-D-E]
Observation: Even in the new Criminal Procedure Code, there is no express
provision which empowers the police to get a bond from the person to whom the
property seized is entrusted. This may lead to practical difficulties, for
instance in cases where a bulky property is seized and the magistrate is living
at a great distance, it would be difficult for a police officer to report to
the magistrate with the property. The Government will be well-advised to make
suitable amendments in the code to fill up this serious lacuna by giving power
to the police for taking the bond in such circumstances. 1782-E-Fl
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 128 of 1975.
780 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment
and order dated the 22nd November, 1974 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal
Revision No. 2475 of 1971.
K. C. Agarwala and M. M. L. Srivastava, for
the appellant.
O. P. Rana, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B
FAZAL ALI J. This appeal by special leave involves a short point of law
relating to the legal enforceability of a personal bond executed by the
appellant before the police for the production of the car belonging to him,
which was alleged to have been stolen. The facts leading to the appeal fall
within a very narrow compass.
The appellant appears to have bought a car
No. USD 5317 from the dealers ON] the basis of a hire-purchase agreement.
He filed a report before the police alleging
that Ran Singh and others had practised a fraud on him and had taken away his
car and had not returned the same. On 3-12-1969, the police during the course
of investigation recovered the car and handed it over to the appellant on
supardnama on his executing a personal bond whereby the appellant undertook to
produce the car in the court whenever necessary, and in the case of failure to
do so, he bound himself to pay a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. By the time the matter
came to the Court, two years had elapsed and on 14-9-1971, the munsiff
magistrate, Meerut, called upon the appellant to produce the car, and as he was
unable to do so, a notice was issued under section 514 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for forfeiture of the bond. After hearing the appellant, the
magistrate ordered the forfeiture of the bond and directed the appellant to pay
penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. The appellant went up in appeal to the learned Session
Judge against the magistrate's order. But the appeal was dismissed. The
appellant met the same fate in revision which was preferred to the High Court.
Hence, this appeal before us.
The short point taken by learned counsel for
the appellant is that even accepting the prosecution case as it stands, the
bond is not legally enforceable under the Criminal Procedure code, because it
was not executed before a court, but it was executed before a police officer.
It is not disputed by counsel for the parties that as the occurrence took place
long before the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the present case will be covered
by the old Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The Criminal Procedure Code contains
separate provisions for the custody of property (1) during the course of
investigation, (2) during the course of enquiry and trial, and (3) after the
accused is convicted or acquitted. In the instant case, we are concerned,
however, with the case while it was under investigation. Section 523 of the
Code runs thus:- "The seizure by. any police officer of property taken
under section 51, or alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or found under
circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence, shall be
forthwith reported to a Magistrate, who shall make such order as he thinks fit
respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to
the person entitled to the possession there of, or, if such person cannot be
ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property." , It
would thus appear from a perusal of this provision that the moment a police
officer seizes a property suspected to have been stolen or which is the subject
matter of an offence" he has to report the matter to the magistrate
concerned and it is for the magistrate to pass such orders as he thinks fit
regarding the disposal of the property. The learned counsel or the respondent,
Mr. O. P. Rana, has, however, drawn our attention to Regulation 165 of the
Government of Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations in order to contend that this
provision concerned clear authority on the police officer to take possession of
the property seized and to give it on superd nama to any respectable person.
165(ii) runs thus:
"(ii) Bulky property, other than
livestock taken possession of under section 25 of the Police Act V of 1861,
attached, distrained or seized under section 88, 387 or 523 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure shall ordinarily, pending the orders of the Magistrate, be
left at the place where it was found in the charge of some land holder or other
respect able person willing to undertake responsibility for its custody and to
produce it when required by the court." It is true that this provision
read with section 423 undoubtedly authorizes the police to seize the property
and to make a summary order of the custody of the property, but neither section
523 nor rule 165(ii) authorize the police officer to take a bond from the
person to whom the property is entrusted. The policy of the law appears to be
that the execution of the bond involves a civil liability and, therefore, it is
ill the fitness of things that it should be executed before a court. Section
514 of the Code runs thus:- "514(1) 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,".
A perusal of this section clearly shows that
a bond for the production of the property seized by the police must be executed
before the Court, although a bond for the appearance of any person before the
Court can be taken by the police under section 170(2) of the Code of Criminal `
Procedure. This section also clearly enjoins that a bond can be forfeited only
if it is executed before a Court or before a Presidency Magistrate or a
Magistrate of the first class.
Section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
classifies the classes of courts which includes magistrate of the first class
also. In the present case, therefore, once the car was seized by the police, it
was the duty of the police under section 523 to report the matter to the
magistrate and get an order from him regarding the custody of the car. This
does not appear to have been done. Even the bond which was executed by the
appellant, was not before the 782 court or the magistrate but before the police
officer, and in these circumstances, therefore, the aforesaid bond was not one
as contemplated by section 514 and, therefore, could not be forfeited. This
Court in . Rameshwar Bhartia v. The State of Assam(1) went into this very
question and observed:
"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 Criminal Procedure Code
applied. Action could be taken only when the bond is taken by the court under
the provisions of the Code ..." The facts of the present case squarely
fall within the ratio laid down in that case. It follows, therefore, that
unless a personal bond is executed by a person for the production of the
property, before a court it shall not be valid in law.
In view of these circumstances, therefore, we
are satisfied that the bond executed by the appellant was not legally
enforceable and the older of the courts belong forfeiting the bond must,
therefore, be quashed.
Before closing this judgment, we would like
to observe that even r. in the new Criminal Procedure Code, there is no express
provision which empowers the police to get a bond from the person to whom the
property seized is entrusted.
This may lead to practical difficulties for
instance in cases where a bulky. property, like an elephant or a car is seized
and the magistrate is living at a great distance, it would , be difficult for a
police officer to report to the magistrate with the property. In these
circumstances, we feel that the Government will be well-advised to make
suitable amendments in the Code of Criminal Procedure to fill up this serious
lacuna by giving pow. r to the police for taking the bond in such
circumstances. We would also like to make it clear that since the bond is
legally invalid. it is not enforceable under section 514, Criminal Procedure
Code, but we refrain from making any observation regarding any other liability
of the appellant under the law. For the reasons given above, we allow this
appeal, set aside the orders of the courts below and discharge the appellant
from the bond V.M.K. Appeal allowed.
(1)A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 405.
Back
