State of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammed Sayeed

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1955

Decision Date: 26 March, 1957

Coram: Syed Jaffer Imam, Natwarlal H. Bhagwati, A.K. Sarkar

The State of Uttar Pradesh versus Mohammed Sayeed was decided on 26 March 1957 by a Bench of the Supreme Court of India consisting of Justice Syed Jaffer Imam, Justice Natwarlal H. Bhagwati and Justice A. K. Sarkar. The case is reported in 1957 AIR 587 and 1957 SCR 770. The dispute arose under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely sections 499, 514 and 555, and concerned the validity and enforceability of a surety bond executed under the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, clause 4. The bond required the surety to forfeit a sum of money to the King Emperor, Qaisar‑e‑Hind, on failure to produce the accused. The headnote of the judgment states that in 1953 the respondent executed such a surety bond, promising to produce the accused before the magistrate and to surrender Rs 500 to the King Emperor as a penalty if he failed to do so. When the accused was not produced, the magistrate forfeited Rs 300 of the bond. The respondent contended that because the bond was not made in favour of the Government, it could not be forfeited. The Court held that the bond was not a bond recognized by the law of the Republic of India at the time of its execution and therefore could not be forfeited. The Court observed that the respondent had not bound himself to forfeit the sum to either the Government of the Union of India or the Government of Uttar Pradesh; a valid bond under the Code of Criminal Procedure must be made in favour of the Government, not the King Emperor. Accordingly, the words “King Emperor Qaisar‑e‑Hind” in the bond could not, by virtue of clause 4 of the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, be interpreted as referring to the Government. The judgment was delivered in a criminal appellate jurisdiction concerning Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1955, an appeal filed under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11 March 1955 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 1954, which itself arose from the order dated 21 February 1954 of the Sessions Judge at Gonda in Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 1953. Counsel for the appellant were G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal. The Court noted that the undisputed facts were that a certain Mohammad Yasin had been prosecuted under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, was released on bail, and that the respondent, together with a person named Ram Narain, had stood surety for him by executing surety bonds under section 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, each bond undertaking to produce the accused before the Court and to forfeit Rs 500 each as a penalty to the King Emperor if they failed to do so.

The respondent had stood surety for Mohammad Yasin under section 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, executing a bond that required Yasin to appear in court and, failing that, to forfeit a specified sum. Yasin subsequently absconded, and every effort to secure his presence before the court proved futile. Consequently, notices were issued to the sureties under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requiring them to show cause why their bonds should not be forfeited. After considering the matter, the magistrate ordered that each bond be forfeited to the extent of three hundred rupees. The respondent appealed this order to the Sessions Judge of Gonda, who dismissed the appeal. Dissatisfied with both the magistrate’s and the Sessions Judge’s decisions, the respondent filed a criminal revision in the Allahabad High Court. Mulla J. allowed the revision application and set aside the magistrate’s order forfeiting the bond. At the request of the Government Advocate, the high‑court judge granted the certificate necessary for the present appeal to the Supreme Court. The sole question for consideration was whether the bond executed by the respondent qualified as a bond under the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore could be forfeited pursuant to section 514 of that Code. Section 499 of the Code required that before any person was released on bail or on his own bond, a bond for a sum deemed sufficient by the police officer or the court be executed by the accused and, when released on bail, by one or more sufficient sureties, conditionally obligating the accused to attend at the prescribed time and place and to continue attending until directed otherwise by the police officer or the court. Schedule V of the Code of Criminal Procedure listed various forms, and section 555, subject to the power conferred by section 554 and article 227 of the Constitution, permitted the use of those forms, with any necessary variations, as sufficient for the purposes indicated. Form XLII of Schedule V set out the contents of a bond to be executed by an accused and his surety, dividing the bond into two parts—one signed by the accused and the other by the surety or sureties. Both parties, by executing the bond, guaranteed the accused’s attendance in court whenever called upon and, in case of default, bound themselves to forfeit the specified sum to the Government. This wording had been required since the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, dated 26 January 1950, which introduced the term “Government” into the bond, replacing the earlier reference to “Crown” or “His Majesty.” Clause 4 of that Order stipulated that whenever an expression appearing in column 1 of the accompanying table occurred in any existing Central or Provincial law, it should be substituted by the expression shown in column 2, unless expressly directed otherwise. Consequently, the words “Crown,” “Her Majesty,” and “His Majesty” were to be replaced by “Government” in the applicable statutes, including the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is listed among the Central Laws in the First Schedule of the Order.

In this case, the Court observed that the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, provided that, except where the Order expressly required a different treatment, any expression appearing in the title, preamble, citation or description of an enactment in an existing Central or Provincial law was to be replaced by the expression shown opposite to it in column two of the Schedule to the Order. The Schedule listed, in column one, the words “Crown”, “Her Majesty” and “His Majesty”, and in column two it placed the word “Government” opposite each of those. Accordingly, the plain meaning of the clause required that wherever the words “Crown”, “Her Majesty” or “His Majesty” occurred in the Central or Provincial statutes referred to in the First Schedule, they were to be substituted by the word “Government”. The Court noted that the Code of Criminal Procedure was one of the Central statutes included in that Schedule, and that Schedule V of the Code was specifically mentioned as being subject to the substitution rule, so that, throughout Schedule V, the expressions “Her Majesty the Queen” and “His Majesty the King” were to be replaced by “Government”, unless a different provision was made. The Court further explained that before the 1950 Order there had been an Adaptation of Laws Order of 1948, which had replaced the words “Empress of India” in the bond form with the words “Her Majesty the Queen”. After India became a Dominion in 1947 and a Republic in 1950, the two Orders were issued to reflect the change in the constitutional status of the country. Consequently, from 26 January 1950 onward, a bond executed in favour of the Empress of India could no longer be regarded as a bond executed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bond that the respondent had executed required him to forfeit a specified sum to the King‑Emperor if he failed to secure the accused’s attendance before the court. The Court observed that the respondent had not executed a bond binding him to forfeit the sum to the Government of the Union of India or to the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The bond that the respondent signed in 1953 therefore did not correspond to any form recognised by the law of the Republic of India under the Code of Criminal Procedure at the time of its execution. Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a court to forfeit a bond that has been executed under the provisions of that Code. Since the respondent’s bond was not a bond governed by the Code, the Court held that Section 514 could not be invoked to forfeit it. Nevertheless, the State had urged that, under the terms of the Order, the bond should be interpreted as having been amended by the substitution of the word “Government” for the words “Her Majesty the Queen”.

In examining the effect of clause 4 of the Adaptation of Laws Order 1950, the Court observed that this clause altered the prescribed form of the bond by substituting the word “Government” in place of the expression “Her Majesty The Queen.” Accordingly, the bond was to be read on that basis, and the terms “King Emperor Qaisar‑e‑Hind” were to be considered no longer applicable in a forfeited bond. However, clause 4 expressly provides for the replacement of the words “Crown,” “Her Majesty,” and “His Majesty” with “Government.” The provision does not contain any reference to substituting the expressions “King Emperor,” “Emperor of India,” “Queen Empress,” “Empress of India,” or “Qaisar‑e‑Hind.” Consequently, the Court concluded that the words “King Emperor Qaisar‑e‑Hind” appearing in the bond executed by the respondent could not, by virtue of clause 4, be interpreted as meaning “Government.” The Court noted that there must have been some error, carelessness or negligence on the part of those responsible for making the necessary changes in the wording of the bond set out in Schedule V of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is to be executed under section 499. Despite any mistake in drafting, the essential fact remained that the respondent had not bound himself either to the Government of the Union of India or to the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh to forfeit the bond in case he failed to produce the accused before the court. The Court therefore held that the respondent was entitled to contend that no order of forfeiture could be made against him with respect to a bond that was not a bond under the Code and that was unknown to the law contained in the Code at the time of its execution. The objection raised by the respondent to the order forfeiting his bond was therefore regarded as substantial, and the order had been passed on a mistaken belief that it could be made under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.