AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Maclean, C.J.—I think that the bonds ought not to have been escheated under the circumstances of this case. There has been a mistake, and there was no intention on the part of those who gave security not to appear. The mistake has been really the mistake of the Court. The matter was before the Court on the 20th September. The Deputy Magistrate had not time to hear the case on that day, and he fixed the 26th as the day for the hearing. The 26th was a Sunday, on which day the Court did not sit. This probably escaped everybody''s notice. The Petitioners, therefore, could not appear on that day, they did appear a day or two later. It is said that they ought to have appeared on the Monday following the Sunday. The answer to that is, that the Court did not order them to appear on that day; and that in strictness they were only bound to appear upon the day upon which they were ordered to do so. It was the Court''s mistake, not that of the present Petitioners. I do not think that it was the intention of the Petitioners not to answer to their bail. I think, therefore, that under the peculiar circumstances the rule must be made absolute, and the fines, if realised, must be refunded.
Banerjee, J.
I agree.