1965 (10) TMI 83 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Competency of legal person to execute a surety bond.
2. Interpretation of the term "person" in the context of surety bonds.
3. Whether artificial persons can execute surety bonds.
4. Scope of section 513 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
5. Obligations of sureties in securing the presence of accused individuals.
6. Application of section 502 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding bond discharge.
7. Limitation period for filing revision petitions.

Analysis:

Competency of legal person to execute a surety bond:
The judgment dealt with the issue of whether a legal person can execute a surety bond. The counsel for the petitioners argued that a legal person is competent to do so, citing the definition of "person" in the Indian Penal Code. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing that surety bonds cannot be executed by artificial persons.

Interpretation of the term "person" in the context of surety bonds:
The court analyzed the definitions in the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, concluding that the concession to deposit money in lieu of executing a bond is only available to individuals, not sureties. The court held that the concession does not extend to sureties, based on the language used in the relevant provisions.

Whether artificial persons can execute surety bonds:
The judgment discussed whether artificial persons, such as corporations, can execute surety bonds. The court ruled that a corporation cannot be called upon to execute a bond as an accused person, as the obligation of vigilance cannot effectively be cast on a corporation. The court highlighted that the responsibility of sureties is to prevent the absconding of the accused, a duty that cannot be fulfilled by artificial persons.

Scope of section 513 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The court examined the scope of section 513 of the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing that the provision allowing the deposit of money in lieu of executing a bond is not applicable to sureties. The court clarified that this concession is only available to individuals required to execute a bond.

Obligations of sureties in securing the presence of accused individuals:
The judgment elaborated on the obligations of sureties in securing the presence of accused individuals. The court emphasized that the purpose of surety bonds is to ensure the appearance of the accused and prevent absconding. The court concluded that this obligation cannot be effectively fulfilled by artificial persons.

Application of section 502 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding bond discharge:
The court briefly discussed the application of section 502 of the Criminal Procedure Code, stating that only sureties could apply to the Magistrate to discharge the bond executed by them. However, the court did not delve into this issue further due to the decision on the merits.

Limitation period for filing revision petitions:
Lastly, the judgment addressed the objection raised by the respondents regarding the limitation period for filing revision petitions. The court noted that the revision petitions were dismissed, and the objection on limitation was not further discussed, suggesting that it could potentially be condoned if necessary.