9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (10) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. Both the petitioners were produced before the Additional District Magistrate who admitted them to bail in the sum of ₹ 10,000 with one surety in the like amount. Both the petitioners furnished sureties and were released on bail. On 28th October, 1964 the petitioners filed an application requesting that the original surety bonds be substituted by bonds to be furnished by the chartered bank. The learned Additional District Magistrate came to the conclusion that only a natural person could execute a bond as surety and. therefore, the petitioner's application could not be allowed. This order was unheld by the Additional Sessions Judge. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... swers to this contention:- (1) It is not correct to suggest that the words unless a different intention appears from the subject or context in section 4(1) do not control the definitions incorporated in the Criminal Procedure Code by virtue of section 4(2) thereof. It is difficult to accept that the Legislature intended that all the words defined in section 4(1) should be given that meaning unless a different intention appears while the meaning of the words defined in the Indian Penal Code and incorporated in the Criminal Procedure Code by virtue of section 4(2) should not be subjected to variation even if a different intention appears from the subject or context. In the setting sub-section (2) must be read as a continuation of sub-sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be used to restrict the language of section 499 so as to permit only natural persons to execute bonds as sureties. Moreover, according to the learned counsel, the intention of the Legislature is clear from the fact that a surety is to be imprisoned only if the penalty, as mentioned in subsection (4) of section 514. is not paid. He also seeks to supplement his argument by an illustration that in case of an accused person a bond has to be executed by him under section 499. In case where a Corporation is being prosecuted, section 499 will require an execution of a bond by such Corporation. In such a case the bond may be forfeited under section 514 and penalty imposed but yet the whole of sub-section (4) of section 514 cannot be brought in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecute a bond as an accused person under section 499. Section 499 requires a bond to be executed by a person released on bail or released on his own bond. Since a Corporation can never be arrested, the question of execution of a bond cannot arise. Consequently, there can never be an occasion of forfeiture of a bond executed by a Corporation as an accused. The whole object of execution of bonds by the sureties is to secure the presence of a person facing trial. Responsibility is cast on the sureties to see that such a person does not escape. In accepting or rejecting a surety the Court has to see that the sureties are persons of sufficient financial ability and of sufficient vigilance to secure the appearance and prevent the absconding of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
