State of Punjab vs Amritsaria Ram

J.M. Tandon, J.—In proceeding u/s 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code 1973, the Executive Magistrate, Kapurthala, directed Amritsaria Ram to furnish bail in the sum of Rs 30,000/- for a appearance and Rs. 30,000/ for security purposes. Amritsaria Ram approached the Sessions Judge u/s 440, Criminal Procedure Code, alleging that amount of bail demanded was excessive and prayed for its reduction An objection was raised before the Session Judge regarding his competency to entertain the application u/s 440, Criminal Procedure Code The Sessions Judge vide order dated August 11, 1975 held that he was competent to entertain the application under sub section (2) of section 440, Criminal Procedure Code He also found that the amount of bail demanded for appearance and security purpose was excessive and reduced it to Rs. 5000/-, each. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed by the State.

The learned Advocate General has argued that the learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that he was competent under sub station (2) of section 440, Criminal Procedure Code to entertain the application of Amritsaria Ram for reduction of bail amount demanded from him in security proceedings. Sub section (1) of section 440 is restricted to bonds executed under Chapter XXXIII of the Code. Sub section (2) of section 440 is not independent of sub-section (1) thereof. The provisions relating to security proceedings are contained in Chapter VIII of Criminal Procedure Code. Sub-section (2) of section 440 shall, therefore, have no application to security proceedings under Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code. In my opinion, the contention is devoid of force.

Section 440 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads:�

Section 440(1) The amount of every bond executed under this Chapter shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive.

(2) The High Court or Court of Session may direct that the bail required by a police officer or Magistrate be reduced.

Under sub section (1) of sect on 440, it is specifically provided that it shall relate to the bonds executed under the Chapter containing this section. Section 440 is contained in Chapter XXXIII. This subsection (2) is directory Under sub section (2), the High Court and the Court of Session have been give the power to reduce the bail required by a police officer or a Magistrate The point for consideration is: Whether sub section (2) of section 44 is restricted to Chapter XXXIII of the Criminal Procedure Code or it will apply to security proceedings as well, the provisions of which are contained in Chapter VIII of the Code?

The application of the provisions contained in sections in Chapter XXXIII of the new Code is not per se restricted to this Chapter. The provision contained in sub section (1) of section 440 has been specifically restricted to the bonds executed under Chapter XXXIII. Sub section (2) of section 440 is independent of sub section (1) thereof and is not subservient thereto. The restriction imposed in sub section (1) therefore, shall not extend to sub section (2).

The learned Advocate General has relied upon AIR 1930 529 (Lahore) wherein it was held that section 117(3) had been introduced for the purpose of preventing a breach of peace or disturbance of the public tranquility or the commission of any offence or in the interest of public safely pending an enquiry under sections 108, 109 and 110 It was not therefore, open to the High Court under provisions of section 498 to product the security which the Magistrate orders to be furnished. In this authority, the power of the High Court under sub-section (1) of section 493, Criminal Procedure Code (old) in proceedings u/s 117(3) of the old Code was examined and it was held (and rightly) that the High Court could not reduce the security which the Magistrate orders to be furnished The limitation on the power of the High Court was imposed by section 498, Criminal Procedure Code (old), itself which read:�

493 (1) The amount of every bond executed under this Chapter shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case, and shall not be excessive; and the High Court or Court of Session may, in any case, whether there be an appeal on conviction or not, direct that any person be admitted to bail, or that the bail required by & police officer or Magistrate be reduced.

(2) * * * *

It is clear from sub-section (1) of section 48 (reproduced above) that the power of the High Court was restricted to the amount of bond executed under Chapter XXXIX of Criminal Procedure Code, which contained this section. The position stands altered u/s 440, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The splitting of sub-section (1) of section 498, Criminal Procedure Code (old) into two independent sub-sections in section 449, Criminal Procedure Code 1973, and the construction thereof is suggestive that the Legislature did not intend to restrict the power of the High Court or the Court of Session under sub-section (2 to the bonds executed under Chapter XXXIII of the Code. Sub-section (2) of S. 440 being independent of sub-section (1) will thus have application to security proceedings under Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as well The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, rightly entertained the application of Amritsaria Ram for reducing the amount of bail demanded from him by the Executive Magistrate.

The learned Advocate General has not challenged the correctness or the propriety of the impugned order reducing the amount of the bail bond

In the result the revision fails and is dismissed.